# Drawing Gun In Public



## AZ Outlaws

Yesterday, a House Panel in Phoenix, AZ voted 5-4 in favor of allowing people to draw and display their 
gun in public if they feel they were in danger. In other words, allow you to warn someone you were 
armed. In the past, you were not allowed to warn, display or draw unless you were in fear of your life 
and were going to fire upon someone.

Here is the article from the East Valley Tribune.

What do you think, do you agree... yes or no?

I have mixed emotions about it. I've been raised to walk softly, carry a big stick and use it only when 
absolutly necessary. In other words, don't pull a gun unless you are going to shoot....


----------



## BarbedWireSmile

I voted yes for a very simple reason.

Regardless of your opinion on this issue, the government must not be allowed to "allow" or "disallow" you to take such action. Every time we permit the goverment to "allow" or "disallow" we fall farther down that slippery slope.


----------



## AZ Outlaws

BarbedWireSmile said:


> I voted yes for a very simple reason.
> 
> Regardless of your opinion on this issue, the government must not be allowed to "allow" or "disallow" you to take such action. Every time we permit the goverment to "allow" or "disallow" we fall farther down that slippery slope.


Sir; that "was not" the question and the intent of the poll "was not" to debate what the government should or shouldn't be allowed to do. As a citizen of a city, a state and a country... you have laws to follow, whether you agree or not. Some are good, some are bad. The laws are on the books until they are changed or repeled. That's what the Arizona State Government is trying to do, change the law.

You're response does not answer the question in the context it was asked.... which was simply, should a person be allowed to warn or show they have a gun in hopes to calm a situation without having to draw and fire on someone. As it is now, in Arizona, you can carry openly or conceled with a permit. However, if carrying conceled, you are not allowed to display or warn people you have a gun, if you do, you can go to jail for assult. If carrying openly, it is what it is, but you are still not allowed draw attention to your gun or warn someone you have it....


----------



## Todd

I think any time you can use non-deadly force over deadly force it's a good thing. Therefore, if you can draw your gun without having to fire and that alone diffuses the situation, great. However, you should only be able to draw if the use of deadly force was warranted, but I don't think that just because you draw that you then are required by law to fire. I'd much more prefer to have to draw and the BG runs away than having to kill someone and have to deal with the mental aspects of taking a life as well as the almost guaranteed civil suit of "After _______ got off of crack, he was going to be a top neuro surgeon. You owe us $50 million dollars for his lost potential earnings."

In terms of just lifting your shirt to show the gun, I don't see much point in that. You're either in a situation where you need to clear the leather or not.


----------



## Wandering Man

"Feeling Threatened" is pretty subjective. And once unholstered a negligent discharge becomes much more likely. I agree with Todd, don't pull the gun unless you are ready to use it. Once pulled, not having to use it is a plus. But at what point do you "feel threatened" enough to pull the gun but not shoot?

WM


----------



## Mike Barham

My plan is to pull the gun when I am in "imminent danger of death or grave bodily harm." If the guy sees the gun and immediately stops whatever action made me feel I was in danger, *great*! He can crawl back under his rock and I will call the cops to give them a report.

If he continues in the face of my pistol, however, he will receive its contents.

*WM* is correct about the subjectivity of feeling threatened. You need to be able to articulate _why_ you felt threatened to the cops and, if necessary, a jury. This shouldn't be very tough for a reasonable person - a guy coming at you with a knife or baseball bat or tire iron is pretty easy to describe as a threat.


----------



## JeffWard

I feel there are MANY instances where a gun might be drawn, and NOT used, if required. Just one to consider:

If I'm walking from work to my car, with a cash bag in my left hand, and I'm surrounded by 3-4 thugs who'd gladly kill me for the bag I'm carrying, Simply drawing to let thm know at least ONE of them is gonna get shot... may stop the situation. Many men are really tough when in a pack, fired up by peer pressure. Add the element of getting shot to the equation, and attitudes change.

I don't want to kill anyone. I don't romantacize about it at all, but especially in a multiple BG scenario, where they are unarmed, but have numbers... as is often the case... I don't want to have to wait until I'm rushed, to show them that the fight is more "even" than they may think.

Regardless of the law... and I understand the intent of avoiding/outlawing "brandishing"... I'm drawing if it's 2 or 3 or 4 on one, and I'm cornered. If I HAVE to shoot, I'm willing, but if simply dropping the bag between my feet, and drawing the gun takes the fight out of them... that is the MUCH better option.

If I get convicted of assult when it's 3 on 1, and I didn't shoot??? I don't believe it will happen.

JW


----------



## Liko81

The best shot is the one you don't have to make.

If you can defuse a situation without firing a shot, you do so. That means up to and including drawing on your aggressor.

The language here I might object to is "threatened". I don't know if it's in the measure or just used synonymously with "in danger", but you can feel threatened and be totally unjustified in responding with force. Your physical safety, that of those with you, or the security of your home must be in jeopardy.

It is a good measure in that it presumes justification for drawing, which at least in Texas (dunno about Arizona) is use of force.


----------



## JeffWard

In FL, "in danger" is at risk of a potential First Degree Felony...

Murder, rape, assult... to yourself OR anyone else. 

You can shoot someone who is threatening someone ELSE with a knife. If you feel someone is going to physically assult you, you can shoot. The law gets murky if I (a 240lb fit adult male) is "threatened" by an unarmed 135lb teenager... If that teenager has a knife? No question... I'm drawing. If he continues to advance, knife vs. gun, he's a good candidate for elimination from the gene pool.

He's the sticky-icky...

Say you are in liquer store. A thug assults the cashier with a knife, you draw to convince him to stop, and DON'T shoot (for whatever reason). He steps behind the clerk, stabs her, then exits the store through a crowd of people, presenting NO SHOT.

You've drawn, and not shot, and the store owner, the clerk's father, sues YOU for NOT shooting when you had the right by law.

The gun chased the thug away, but not before he assulted the clerk.

If you had NOT drawn, he still gets away, but you're now just a witness.

Makes you think...

JW


----------



## Sig Al

This seems to be a touchy subject but I say yes. If you feel theatened, you should be able to draw your weapon to hopefully defuse the situation. I'm sure the average "thug" will be scared off. No one is hurt and no shots are fired. But the law must be followed.


----------



## Fred40

The question was "If you feel threatened" That's a bit grey. Threatened how? But assuming the threat of bodily injury or death then obviously yes. _Threatened_ could just mean "a sense of possible danger". Here I would say no.....it needs to be more than just a potentially dangerous situation. That is the stage where you are on full alert and prepared to draw if necessary.


----------



## Dsig1

Todd said:


> I think any time you can use non-deadly force over deadly force it's a good thing. Therefore, if you can draw your gun without having to fire and that alone diffuses the situation, great.


Overall this is a great question. I would think you should be allowed to display/draw but it draws a thin line between that and brandishing a weapon for the wrong reasons. It could also escalate a situation to make the other person draw a weapon.

I drive a lot (commute to my office is 80 miles 1 way on the PA TPKE) and I often encounter aggressive drivers. Last week I had a guy cut in front of me as he came onto the highway from behind a truck. I was going 75 which is typical and when he cut me off I was very close to his rear. I backed off and went around him about a mile later (no big deal). He took exception to something because he got on my tail and then moved next to me and swerved at me in a threatening manner. It took all of my self control not to reach under my dash and pull my S&W Sigma because I truly felt my life was threatened. I tried slowing and letting him just go but he kept at me. I finally gunned it and just out ran him going over 100 for the next minute or two.

I don't know protocol but my life was in danger and I had to do something dangerous to get out of the situation. Maybe pulling the Sigma would have gotten him away or maybe he would have pulled his own and the situation would have been worse.


----------



## Todd

Dsig1 said:


> Overall this is a great question. I would think you should be allowed to display/draw but it draws a thin line between that and brandishing a weapon for the wrong reasons. It could also escalate a situation to make the other person draw a weapon.


Which is exactly why I said that you should *only* be able to draw if deadly force is warranted.



Dsig1 said:


> I drive a lot (commute to my office is 80 miles 1 way on the PA TPKE) and I often encounter aggressive drivers. Last week I had a guy cut in front of me as he came onto the highway from behind a truck. I was going 75 which is typical and when he cut me off I was very close to his rear. I backed off and went around him about a mile later (no big deal). He took exception to something because he got on my tail and then moved next to me and swerved at me in a threatening manner. It took all of my self control not to reach under my dash and pull my S&W Sigma because I truly felt my life was threatened. I tried slowing and letting him just go but he kept at me. I finally gunned it and just out ran him going over 100 for the next minute or two.
> 
> I don't know protocol but my life was in danger and I had to do something dangerous to get out of the situation. Maybe pulling the Sigma would have gotten him away or maybe he would have pulled his own and the situation would have been worse.


Did you think to call 911 during or even afterward? A cell phone is one of the best weapons that most of us have. Someone started driving like that around me and that would have been the first thing I would have done. Mile marker, direction, my car's description, his car's description, driver's description, and then stay on the phone. Jerk-weed saw you pull a phone and I bet he would have high tailed out of there figuring you were on the phone with the cops. Not pulling the gun was smart IMO, as I think it would have probably only escalated the situation and could have ended up with him running you off the road claiming _you_ were the mad man with a gun and he drove you off the road in self defense. Odds are you'd have a hard time getting a witness to come forth and it would have been your word against his.


----------



## Dsig1

Todd said:


> Did you think to call 911 during or even afterward? A cell phone is one of the best weapons that most of us have. Someone started driving like that around me and that would have been the first thing I would have done.


The PA TP has far spaced exits where I live and not many patrol men. They are concentrated more toward the Philadelphia exits which are much busier and closer together. It's not rare for one or two patrol cars to cover an 80 mile stretch on both sides and they never sit for speed traps.

My cell is usually in my bag in the back seat for my early morning commute. I drive pretty early in the morning so no one is up to talk to. Plus I was white knuckled on the wheel due to the speed and his erratic behavior. I thought about calling the cops later but again it would have been one story against another.

My question from all of this is, can a 2 ton vehicle with a nut case at the wheel be considered a life threatening situation where I could reasonably show my gun, and then, if the person was undeterred, could I use deadly force. For a LEO it is considered OK in this manner. If a cop is in a deadly auto situation where their life if threatened, I think they can use deadly force. How about a citizen?

At least the encounter made me like my German car even more.


----------



## Todd

Dsig1 said:


> I thought about calling the cops later but again it would have been one story against another.


It couldn't have hurt. Even to just give a time and description of the car. Maybe they've had past reports before or if he does that to someone again, your report would help establish a pattern for this jerk and help put him away for a while if they ever caught him.



Dsig1 said:


> My question from all of this is, can a 2 ton vehicle with a nut case at the wheel be considered a life threatening situation where I could reasonably show my gun, and then, if the person was undeterred, could I use deadly force. For a LEO it is considered OK in this manner. If a cop is in a deadly auto situation where their life if threatened, I think they can use deadly force. How about a citizen?


A car is definitely a deadly weapon. There was a case in VA a little over a year ago that involved a high school kid that lived down the street from my wife's uncle. 4 kids skipped the bill on food at IHOP. An off duty cop working security tried to stop them, they got in the car and the driver went at the cop, the cop fired, killing the kid from down the street (not the driver). It was self-defense because the car is a weapon and the cop was not charged. I think you would be justified to fire at the guy if you felt he was determined to drive you off the road. I do think it would help to have 911 on the phone telling them what was going on so there was a tape transcript versus just your account as to what happened afterwards. I don't think I would bother flashing the gun. The guy has made it clear he wants to do you harm; I'd probably just shoot in that situation.


----------



## Dsig1

Everything I have been taught has told me to evade until I can't evade anymore. So hitting the gas and getting out of there was the best scenario. I did think that if a cop pulled me over for speeding, I would tell him/her the story and let them decide on a course of action.

Well, I'm still here and that guy's still an a$$hole so the world goes on.


----------



## Steve M1911A1

Dsig1 said:


> ...[C]an a 2 ton vehicle with a nut case at the wheel be considered a life threatening situation where I could reasonably show my gun, and then, if the person was undeterred, could I use deadly force. For a LEO it is considered OK in this manner. If a cop is in a deadly auto situation where their life if threatened, I think they can use deadly force. How about a citizen?


In most states, I believe, the law would hold that you were indeed threatened by a "deadly weapon."
Trouble is, without a nearby cop or a handy phone, it's your word against his if he lives to maliciously report you first.
The "nut-case in a car" scenario is indeed a puzzlement.


----------



## niadhf

I was a bit torn on this. I think that drawing a weapon should be a last resort, and at such time one should be ready to use force up to and including deadly. On the other hand, I can see in this litigous society someone drawing, not having to fire (bg runs away) and then being arrested and prosecuted by some anti 2nd ammendment prosecuter for brandishing because "the law saysi you pull, you should have to shoot, and you didnt have to shoot, so you were really just brandishing and threatening my fine upstanding citizen client (members of the jury pleas ignore the 5 page rap sheet and put the real violent criminal, mr joe average behind bars.) yeah, i know that is a convoluted reasoning of what the law may say, but hey. i'm talking LAWYERS here. The same type of people who can't figure that "the right of the people" means individuals just like every other time it is said in the constitution.


----------



## polyguy

The manner of the term _threatened_ could have be explained in this poll. Members would then have a better idea on their response.
Because, a simple mean look could pose a threat to some people. Imagine if everyone was allowed to pull their gun based on THEIR definition of a threat...there would be people pulling guns out at the slightest thing. Not good.

The fact of possible severe bodily harm and/or death would fuel the green light for pulling out your weapon.


----------



## BarbedWireSmile

AZ Outlaws said:


> Sir; that "was not" the question and the intent of the poll "was not" to debate what the government should or shouldn't be allowed to do. As a citizen of a city, a state and a country... you have laws to follow, whether you agree or not. Some are good, some are bad. The laws are on the books until they are changed or repeled. That's what the Arizona State Government is trying to do, change the law.
> 
> You're response does not answer the question in the context it was asked.... which was simply, should a person be allowed to warn or show they have a gun in hopes to calm a situation without having to draw and fire on someone. As it is now, in Arizona, you can carry openly or conceled with a permit. However, if carrying conceled, you are not allowed to display or warn people you have a gun, if you do, you can go to jail for assult. If carrying openly, it is what it is, but you are still not allowed draw attention to your gun or warn someone you have it....


I'm sorry if I didn't answer the question according to your expectations.

And my intention was not to detract from the specificity of your issue. Certainly my intention was not to be rude.

But I stand by the answer nonetheless. Our legal system has become one of singularities, lacking any philosophical foundations. It is difficult to remove this fact from any question regarding gun control legislation or, for that matter, any question regarding the Bill of Rights. To do so is to play into the hands of those who would attack your rights one by one, singularity by singularity. While we must address each assault on our rights as they come, the inability of the insitutional supporters of our individual rights to articulate a philosophically coherent argument that addresses not one, but all such assaults, is one of the reasons why we continue to suffer such regulation and restriction in so many areas of our life. But that's just my opinion. Perhaps I am wrong.

:smt1099


----------



## fivehourfrenzy

No fine lines on this one. Some punk pushes me, trying to start a fight, I won't draw. He keeps up, corners me, and either pulls a knife or is joined by his buddies, I'll draw. Whichever one tries to call my bluff and starts in on me is getting shot. People think they're so tough with their buddies around, but when a teammate takes a hit, the team just runs away.

As far as the car incident, a car is a deadly weapon. It's a 3,500-pound slug that can go 120mph+, and is controllable up until impact. In that situation, I'd gun it for a few miles. If he keeps up, I'll pull over. If he continues his actions and gets out of his car and approaches, I'll sit still and wait for him to knock the window out. Then I'll unload on his ass.

I think this is where the lines _really_ get blurred. What warrants a life-and-death situation? If someone gets out of their car and approaches you, how do you know the danger of the situation? Just because they aren't wielding a pistol or sawed off shotgun doesn't mean it's not tucked away in their coat. In a situation where I simply didn't know the extent of the danger, I'd assume the worst and act accordingly. Just because he's barehanded doesn't mean he doesn't have full intent of killing you, or is going to reach inside his jacket and yank out a .45 or Mac 10. Say he struts up and knocks on your window. He might just wanna talk it out, or he might be ready to shove a 10" knife across your throat. I don't take chances like that. If he tries to get in my car, he should consider himself dead. I'd rather try to convince the jury I was in fear of my life than have my friends and family pissed off at some criminal that got away because I didn't live to tell about it.

And that's the reality of the situation. You never know someone's intent. While getting pushed isn't grounds for shooting in SD, you don't know how far it's gonna go. And that's where I feel the law is superior. The law says you can act in SD with deadly physical force if and only if you feel your life is threatened. It doesn't say your aggressor has to have a knife or a gun. While fear of severe injury or death cannot be universally defined, and could give room for error, it gives you the right to act, then answer questions later. I'm not advocating that one doesn't use good judgement. But there aren't any clear-cut lines defining when you can shoot, and when you can't. It leaves the judgement up to the individual, and I take comfort in that.


----------



## Jon S

*Allowed by who?*

Your question asks should you be "allowed". If BarbedWireSmile is incorrectly interpretting your question, then who are you implying is allowing or disallowing this?

There are many good responses in this thread, but even among those of us who have thought diligently there is no clear answer. All the more reason that we should each have the choice to decide for ourselves according to the situations we encounter.

The slippery slope argument is sometimes seen as overly dramatic, but with the irrational politicians around, how meaningful is concealed carry once they realize the 2nd ammendment doesn't say "right to bear _*and shoot*_ arms".


----------



## AirForceShooter

I'm military trained. I've carried for over 40 years.
I have always been taught and practiced "if you draw it, you shoot it"
Displaying your weapon gives the bad guy an edge. You have given up the element of surprise.

but, that's just me

AFS


----------



## Dsig1

fivehourfrenzy said:


> No fine lines on this one. Some punk pushes me, trying to start a fight, I won't draw. He keeps up, corners me, and either pulls a knife or is joined by his buddies, I'll draw. Whichever one tries to call my bluff and starts in on me is getting shot. People think they're so tough with their buddies around, but when a teammate takes a hit, the team just runs away.
> 
> As far as the car incident, a car is a deadly weapon. It's a 3,500-pound slug that can go 120mph+, and is controllable up until impact. In that situation, I'd gun it for a few miles. If he keeps up, I'll pull over. If he continues his actions and gets out of his car and approaches, I'll sit still and wait for him to knock the window out. Then I'll unload on his ass.
> 
> I'm not advocating that one doesn't use good judgement. But there aren't any clear-cut lines defining when you can shoot, and when you can't. It leaves the judgement up to the individual, and I take comfort in that.


Agreed. Subtle as usual Five.:smt033



fivehourfrenzy said:


> It leaves the judgement up to the individual, and I take comfort in that.


The other thought process here is the eventual judgment of a jury in the matter. Take into consideration the potential jury pool in the area. Would they agree with your actions?


----------



## Ram Rod

Well, I voted yes after thinking about it quite a bit. You guys in AZ got it pretty good with the option for open carry. If we had the option here, I might have voted no. Everyone has their own sense of responsibilities, and I believe everyone should have the right to make their own decisions based on their ideals.


----------



## AZ Outlaws

AirForceShooter said:


> I'm military trained. I've carried for over 40 years.
> I have always been taught and practiced "if you draw it, you shoot it"
> Displaying your weapon gives the bad guy an edge. You have given up the element of surprise.
> 
> but, that's just me
> 
> AFS


Well said.

We are not the police and IMHO, brandishing a weapon would only escalte a problem. If by chance you draw a weapon with the intent to shoot, but don't "have" to use it at the very last second, so be it. Call the police and report the incident to cover yourself.

With all the idiots and gun crazies walking around, all we need is for them to start waving them around. Use common sense and pull it when you need it... otherwise keep it holstered.


----------



## milquetoast

The point of this proposed law is that Arizona (like all states) has a "Justification" statute. If you shoot and kill somebody, you have committed homicide. Homicide is a crime _unless_ it is "justified." "Justified" means a reasonable person would believe that _use_ of deadly force is immediately necessary to prevent another's (unjustified) use of deadly force.

They are just trying to have the same rule for everything short of actually shooting. That is, there should be a justification statute for "threatening" just as there is for "use."

If you point a gun at somebody, you have committed a crime, "Threatening." There should be an exception if you are "justified." "Justified" would mean a reasonable person would believe that _threatening_ deadly force is immediately necessary to prevent another's (unjustified) use of deadly force.


----------



## gmaske

milquetoast said:


> The point of this proposed law is that Arizona (like all states) has a "Justification" statute. If you shoot and kill somebody, you have committed homicide. Homicide is a crime _unless_ it is "justified." "Justified" means a reasonable person would believe that _use_ of deadly force is immediately necessary to prevent another's (unjustified) use of deadly force.
> 
> They are just trying to have the same rule for everything short of actually shooting. That is, there should be a justification statute for "threatening" just as there is for "use."
> 
> If you point a gun at somebody, you have committed a crime, "Threatening." There should be an exception if you are "justified." "Justified" would mean a reasonable person would believe that _threatening_ deadly force is immediately necessary to prevent another's (unjustified) use of deadly force.


Closing the loophole so to speak. A really good (BAD) lawyer could get you in trouble cause you drew but didn't fire. I think it's kind of a touchy subject because it opens the door for the wrong kind of people to bully with a gun and say they felt threatened.
Then again, once the iron clears leather you have opened Pandora's Box and anything can happen.....Better to leave it hid and holstered till you ain't got a better choice but to use it.


----------



## JohnnyFlake

As has been said, and I agree, there is a whole lot of subjectivity evolved with this issue. I believe that if you truly feel threatened, every fiber of your being should have switched to "condition one" and you should be doing whatever you can to remove yourself and loved ones, if that applies, from the threat! I personally feel there is no need to present your weapon at this point. However, at the instant that feeling of being threatened, switches to the feeling of imminent danger of grave bodily harm, your weapon should come into play, and immediately be presented, and ready to go to work!!!


----------



## fivehourfrenzy

Dsig1 said:


> The other thought process here is the eventual judgment of a jury in the matter. Take into consideration the potential jury pool in the area. Would they agree with your actions?


Regardless of the jury, they're required by law to be objective about the case, and therefore should keep an open mind. While I stick to the saying, "I'd rather be tried by twelve than carried out by six," I still wouldn't wanna spend the rest of life behind bars. I've always been a very logical and reasonable person, and although I have some occasional emotional flaring, I know popping off won't get me anywhere except in trouble, especially when it involves a gun and someone else's life. If I draw and shoot, it won't be without a damn good reason I could present to a judge and jury and back it up with everything I've got.


----------



## Guest

I think a lot has to do with where and when.(circumstances) If your walking down the street and a 'sinister' looking person (or persons) approach, Just putting your hand in your pocket could avoid a problem. Displaying it is one of those judgment calls. But if you do show it,for whatever reason, get on the horn to the law before they do and let the law know what happened.


----------



## Dsig1

fivehourfrenzy said:


> Regardless of the jury, they're required by law to be objective about the case, and therefore should keep an open mind.


I agree with this, however, I used to live in New Jersey, totally liberal and not gun friendly. Everyone in NJ wants to be a lawyer and sue someone else. I now live in Central Pennsylvania, totally conservative, staunch gun advocates, and don't even joke about a frivolous lawsuit here.

In my comment I was reflecting on a potential jury pool from these vastly different states where the exact evidence may yield a vastly different trial result.

Case in point, two of my neighbors had a physical altercation. One guy ( who caused the altercation and is originally from NJ) sued the other for throwing the first punch (and the only one that landed). After testimony, the judge laughed at the plaintiff and said he probably would have hit him too. Case was dismissed. Now in NJ, this would have been a serious, drawn out trial.


----------



## TOF

Bottom line is you do what you believe at a point in time you have to do be it squeeze the trigger or let the hammer down easy.

You make your choice and take your chances.

That said I am for such an addition to the written law.

:smt1099


----------



## Steve M1911A1

Gunerd said:


> I think a lot has to do with where and when.(circumstances) If your walking down the street and a 'sinister' looking person (or persons) approach, Just putting your hand in your pocket could avoid a problem. Displaying it is one of those judgment calls. But if you do show it,for whatever reason, get on the horn to the law before they do and let the law know what happened.


Late at night a guy came to our kitchen door and said that some unspecified teenager he'd given a lift to had "ripped him off of some personal stuff" (very likely pot, or worse).
I told him that no teenagers lived on our block. He insisted that he'd left the kid off right near our house. I told him that the nearest teen lived down the hill about a quarter-mile.
Next, he wanted to come into our house to "see if a kid lives here." He put his hand on the screen-door handle, and began to open it.
I put my hand into my pocket in a way that called attention to my move (and grasped my Semmerling in preparation for a presentation).
He let go of the door, mumbled something about "Excuse me," and turned around and left.
I reported him to the sheriff's deputy, although I never saw his car.


----------



## Todd

Steve M1911A1 said:


> Next, he wanted to come into our house to "see if a kid lives here." He put his hand on the screen-door handle, and began to open it.
> I put my hand into my pocket in a way that called attention to my move (and grasped my Semmerling in preparation for a presentation).
> He let go of the door, mumbled something about "Excuse me," and turned around and left.


That is one reason why I love having a storm door. I can keep it locked and still open the main door while having some protection. And if the person insists on tying to open the door, they have to pull it and therefore eliminates the ability to surge forward, giving me the couple seconds I need to draw if I have to.

Glad it worked out safely for you.


----------



## gmaske

Steve M1911A1 said:


> Late at night a guy came to our kitchen door and said that some unspecified teenager he'd given a lift to had "ripped him off of some personal stuff" (very likely pot, or worse).
> I told him that no teenagers lived on our block. He insisted that he'd left the kid off right near our house. I told him that the nearest teen lived down the hill about a quarter-mile.
> Next, he wanted to come into our house to "see if a kid lives here." He put his hand on the screen-door handle, and began to open it.
> I put my hand into my pocket in a way that called attention to my move (and grasped my Semmerling in preparation for a presentation).
> He let go of the door, mumbled something about "Excuse me," and turned around and left.
> I reported him to the sheriff's deputy, although I never saw his car.


This is the scenario that everyone and particularly women need to watch out for. It could be innocent or you got real trouble at your door and red flags should go up if it's the back door.


----------



## Steve M1911A1

gmaske said:


> This is the scenario that everyone and particularly women need to watch out for. It could be innocent or you got real trouble at your door and red flags should go up if it's the back door.


We live in a VERY remote location. Red flags go up if ANYBODY comes to ANY door of ours, at night.
Neighbors usually phone first.


----------



## fivehourfrenzy

Dsig1 said:


> I agree with this, however, I used to live in New Jersey, totally liberal and not gun friendly. Everyone in NJ wants to be a lawyer and sue someone else. I now live in Central Pennsylvania, totally conservative, staunch gun advocates, and don't even joke about a frivolous lawsuit here.
> 
> In my comment I was reflecting on a potential jury pool from these vastly different states where the exact evidence may yield a vastly different trial result.
> 
> Case in point, two of my neighbors had a physical altercation. One guy ( who caused the altercation and is originally from NJ) sued the other for throwing the first punch (and the only one that landed). After testimony, the judge laughed at the plaintiff and said he probably would have hit him too. Case was dismissed. Now in NJ, this would have been a serious, drawn out trial.


Point taken. Kentucky is a very gun-friendly state. We're even one of the "golden" OC states. Even the totally laid-back people who wouldn't hurt a fly usually pack some sort of handgun on them for those just-in-case situations.

That's funny about the judge. One of my buddies was in the courtroom a few years back reporting to the jury duty drawing. He was there with four friends. He and three of the others had already had their names drawn. They were down the very last name and the fourth buddy leaned over and whispered, "Hey, I think I got out of it!" The judge drew, read the fourth guy's name off, and the guy kicked the bench in front of him and yelled, "F**K!!!" The judge was keeled over laughing along with the rest of the people in the courtroom.


----------



## Dsig1

fivehourfrenzy said:


> They were down the very last name and the fourth buddy leaned over and whispered, "Hey, I think I got out of it!" The judge drew, read the fourth guy's name off, and the guy kicked the bench in front of him and yelled, "F**K!!!" The judge was keeled over laughing along with the rest of the people in the courtroom.


Classic. :smt082


----------



## niadhf

fivehourfrenzy said:


> That's funny about the judge. One of my buddies was in the courtroom a few years back reporting to the jury duty drawing. He was there with four friends. He and three of the others had already had their names drawn. They were down the very last name and the fourth buddy leaned over and whispered, "Hey, I think I got out of it!" The judge drew, read the fourth guy's name off, and the guy kicked the bench in front of him and yelled, "F**K!!!" The judge was keeled over laughing along with the rest of the people in the courtroom.


:smt033 Fully Informed Jurors Association and a citizens right to jury nullification:smt033


----------



## hawcer

So you are saying that they voted to allow a gun to be drawn or displayed in public only if you feel threatened?(that's understandable)

So what was the law before? You could only draw your weapon if you are 100% certain you are going to fire it?

I say yes to drawing a gun in a life threatening situation ,and if the BG runs off,great!.But I have to say no to just displaying it.(not drawn)

Not drawing your weapon tells me it was not a life threatening situation(maybe just a little creeped out ). And now that the BG sees that you have a gun...maybe the Bg will get to it before you do!

Thats My opinion on the matter.


----------



## fivehourfrenzy

Some of this comes down your holster placement. I know several guys that have been approached in a hostile manner and upon reaching behind them (they holstered at 4 o'clock) to cock back a hammer, they were promptly left alone. If your holster/handgun is out of sight from someone approaching you, you can put your hand on it without actually showing it. Being that I wear mine at 1 o'clock, if raise my shirt enough to grab it, it's showing. I wouldn't consider that brandishing if I'm just putting my hand on it tho. The advantages of wearing at 4 o'clock might seem to outweight those of wearing at 1 o'clock, but 4 o'clock is uncomfortable as hell for me.


----------



## flugzeug

AirForceShooter said:


> I'm military trained. I've carried for over 40 years.
> I have always been taught and practiced "if you draw it, you shoot it"
> Displaying your weapon gives the bad guy an edge. You have given up the element of surprise.
> 
> but, that's just me
> 
> AFS


*For all the discussion, this statement by AirForceShooter is simple, exact, accurate and to the point. With the RIGHT to carry, comes a great responsibility.
*


----------



## AZ Outlaws

Thanks for all of the replies even if some of them went OT a little. It was interesting reading all the different opinions and comments.

I posted the same Poll over on the * M&P Pistol* forum and asked the same question I did here... *Should you be allowed to "display" a gun if you feel threatened?*

There is a significant difference of opinion between the folks here and the M&P guys on the subject.

Here are the numbers for the two forums:

*M&P Forum / Handgun Forum

Yes............. 47% / 80%
No.............. 30% / 12%
Undecided.... 21% / 7%*

It seems as if the M&P crowd is more conservative and cautious on the subject, while the folks here are more eager to display their weapon. Hmmmm, interesting....


----------



## niadhf

AZ Outlaws said:


> It seems as if the M&P crowd is more conservative and cautious on the subject, while the folks here are more eager to display their weapon. Hmmmm, interesting....


intersting indedd, but i believe i would take acception to *eager* to display. You did not ask if we should display to disuade, but whether we thought this was a good law. To the second i answered yes, to the first i would have answered no. Why? well, i am a big fan of CYA and as such feel that the revised law helps me cover my a. AS many others said, when it comes out its ready and time to rock. However if the simple presentation ends said isssue, why should one then be open to persecution for not rocking.

Thanks for the heads up, i'll go read some respnses there too.
:smt023


----------



## JohnnyFlake

AZ Outlaws said:


> It seems as if the M&P crowd is more conservative and cautious on the subject, while the folks here are more eager to display their weapon. Hmmmm, interesting....


It clearly tells me that the folks here are more willing to display their weapon in an attempt to end the perceived threat, without violence, which IMHO will happen many more times than not! That is exactly what you should be trying to accomplish! God forbid that there is anyone who is a member on this group, that actually wants to end up shooting someone!!! IMHO the mind-set of not drawing your weapon unless you are going to shoot it, is a very dangerous one. Another statement that confuses me is that if you present your weapon, "You Lose The Edge". What exactly does that mean? If you've been able to successfully present your weapon for whomever the perceived threat maybe, they now know that your are armed and have the ability to use deadly force. If they continued their threat and truly become eminent danger, you are even more justified in using your weapon. If it is meant that you should not present your weapon until the eminent danger is in your face, so to speak, your the one who has lost the edge. Just my $.02

Johnny


----------



## Mike Barham

What *JohnnyFlake* said.

Anyway, if you wait to draw until you absolutely *have* to fire, you have probably already lost the fight. Most people's draw-and-fire times (from concealment) hover in the 2-3 second range. That's an eternity in a close-range fight, and enough time to lose the fight five or six times over.


----------



## AZ Outlaws

Mike Barham said:


> What *JohnnyFlake* said.
> 
> Anyway, if you wait to draw until you absolutely *have* to fire, you have probably already lost the fight. Most people's draw-and-fire times (from concealment) hover in the 2-3 second range. That's an eternity in a close-range fight, and enough time to lose the fight five or six times over.


The intent is not making people wait until they, _"absolutely *have* to fire"_. The bill concerns itself with displaying a CCW in order to *"warn"* somebody you have a gun. That leads us to the point... is it a good idea to have people showing off a gun in order to end a situation where they may or may not have to shoot?

If you carry CCW, I believe it's best to leave it hidden until such time it needs to be drawn AND fired. If you want to warn people you have a gun, carry openly, then the issue is a mute point and you've saved yourself time and money going to a CCW course. You have your weapon and the BG sees it before he starts to even mess with you. With a CCW, when you have to draw, give yourself time to do so. You do not have to wait until the absolute last second to draw. If the BG sees the gun for a second or two after it's drawn and decides to exit the scene, great. Just be sure to call 911 and report the encounter and you should be covered.

I think the bill has good intentions, but makes the issue overly complex. If you're into warning a BG you have a gun to ward off an attack or calm a situation, carry openly. If carrying CCW, leave it covered until you've done everything possible to get out of the situation, then draw.

At first I was undecided on the issue. After thinking about it more and reading other opinions, I've come to the conclusion of... walk softly and carry a big stick has always been a good thing. Why show off your ace-in-the-hole? There are other ways to diffuse a situation than showing off a gun. Draw only when you intend to shoot.

...just my two pesos, take it as you wish.


----------



## Thek9

Circumstances. Operators ability.

Simply put, the above are the variables.

Tom


----------



## niadhf

AZ Outlaws said:


> The intent is not making people wait until they, _"absolutely *have* to fire"_. The bill concerns itself with displaying a CCW in order to *"warn"* somebody you have a gun. That leads us to the point... is it a good idea to have people showing off a gun in order to end a situation where they may or may not have to shoot?
> 
> If you carry CCW, I believe it's best to leave it hidden until such time it needs to be drawn AND fired. If you want to warn people you have a gun, carry openly, then the issue is a mute point and you've saved yourself time and money going to a CCW course. You have your weapon and the BG sees it before he starts to even mess with you. With a CCW, when you have to draw, give yourself time to do so. You do not have to wait until the absolute last second to draw. If the BG sees the gun for a second or two after it's drawn and decides to exit the scene, great. Just be sure to call 911 and report the encounter and you should be covered.
> 
> I think the bill has good intentions, but makes the issue overly complex. If you're into warning a BG you have a gun to ward off an attack or calm a situation, carry openly. If carrying CCW, leave it covered until you've done everything possible to get out of the situation, then draw.
> 
> At first I was undecided on the issue. After thinking about it more and reading other opinions, I've come to the conclusion of... walk softly and carry a big stick has always been a good thing. Why show off your ace-in-the-hole? There are other ways to diffuse a situation than showing off a gun. Draw only when you intend to shoot.
> 
> ...just my two pesos, take it as you wish.


Good points AZ and i am not in disagreement with you. I just tend to be a pessimist. I know that this bill is in Arizona where apparently open carry is allowed. I come from a state where such is not (unless hunting). Also one of those "overly litigious" states that someone mentioned on another thread. And so approached it from that point.

I tired to find that other forum to read posts there. any chance of a link? thanks


----------



## AZ Outlaws

niadhf said:


> I tired to find that other forum to read posts there. any chance of a link? thanks


The site I mentioned has been down all day for maintenance. I'll repost the link when it comes back up....


----------



## 220combat

I fully agree with Air Force Shooter. the weapon should not come out unless the desicion to shoot has been made. You should not remove the weapon unless you are ready to shoot. I disagree with Ram Rod though, I prefer concealed carry so as not to inform anyone (especially the BG) that I am armed.


----------



## TOF

*I thought you all might want to see specificaly what you are talking about. The following was copied from state info files available as hb2629p.pdf 

You can certainly have whatever opinion you wish but I support this bill.

HB 2629
- 1 -
1 Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:
2 Section 1. Title 13, chapter 4, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended
3 by adding section 13-421, to read:
4 ​​13-421. Justification; defensive display of a firearm;​
5 ​​definition​
6 ​​A. THE DEFENSIVE DISPLAY OF A FIREARM BY A PERSON AGAINST ANOTHER IS​
7 ​​JUSTIFIED WHEN AND TO THE EXTENT A REASONABLE PERSON WOULD BELIEVE THAT​
8 ​​PHYSICAL FORCE IS IMMEDIATELY NECESSARY TO PROTECT HIMSELF AGAINST THE​
9 ​​OTHER'S USE OR ATTEMPTED USE OF UNLAWFUL PHYSICAL FORCE.​
10 ​​B. THIS SECTION DOES NOT APPLY TO A PERSON WHO:​
11 ​​1. POINTS THE MUZZLE OF A FIREARM DIRECTLY AT ANOTHER PERSON.​
12 ​​2. DISCHARGES A FIREARM IN THE DIRECTION OF ANOTHER PERSON.​
13 ​​3. INTENTIONALLY PROVOKES ANOTHER PERSON TO USE OR ATTEMPT TO USE​
14 ​​UNLAWFUL PHYSICAL FORCE WHEN THE PERSON POSSESSES A FIREARM.​
15 ​​4. OFFENSIVELY DISPLAYS OR SHOWS A FIREARM WHILE VERBALLY THREATENING​
16 ​​ANOTHER PERSON.​
17 ​​C. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, "DEFENSIVE DISPLAY OF A FIREARM"​
18 ​​INCLUDES:​
19 ​​1. OPENLY WEARING, CARRYING OR POSSESSING A FIREARM.​
20 ​​2. VERBALLY INFORMING ANOTHER PERSON THAT THE PERSON POSSESSES OR HAS​
21 ​​AVAILABLE A FIREARM.​
22 ​​3. HOLDING A FIREARM IN A POSITION SO THAT THE FIREARM DOES NOT POINT​
23 DIRECTLY AT ANOTHER PERSON.

:smt1099
*


----------



## fivehourfrenzy

While I agree with the above posts mentioning that you should not draw until you've exhausted your other options, I wouldn't wait until I *had* to shoot. Like Mike said, if it's to the point where you *will* be shooting in SD, drawing a concealed handgun takes too long. Don't draw until there aren't any other options and you're legally justified in using deadly physical force, but don't wait until you *have* to shoot. By then, it's probably too late.


----------



## niadhf

TOF said:


> *I thought you all might want to see specificaly what you are talking about. The following was copied from state info files available as hb2629p.pdf
> 
> You can certainly have whatever opinion you wish but I support this bill.​*


*

Thanks TOF. That clears it up for me. Yep it does. Now New York needs something similar.​*


----------



## Living in the war zone

I can't imagine displaying a gun helping a situation. I guess I've seen too many psycho's that feel bullet proof and them seeing a gun would probably just provoke them. I might set myself up or try to set myself up to where I can get the gun out quickly .


----------



## AZ Outlaws

Living in the war zone said:


> I can't imagine displaying a gun helping a situation. I guess I've seen too many psycho's that feel bullet proof and them seeing a gun would probably just provoke them. I might set myself up or try to set myself up to where I can get the gun out quickly .


Well said...


----------



## TOF

You are walking down the street after dark and someone comes towards you in a menacing manner with a gun in hand. You draw yours but in the process street lights come on and you realize the perp's gun has one of those funny orange pieces on the end of the barrel that indicates it is a toy gun.

Do you blow the kid away so as not to be charged with brandishing?

Same general scenario: You draw your gun but as you do the perp drops his turns and starts to run away. 

Do you blow this guy away with a couple to the back and one to back of the head so as not to be charged with brandishing?

I think not.

You should not draw unless you think you need to but keep an open mind about things cause, should a problem occur, it will probably not happen the way you expect.

Stay safe but don't kill unnecessarily.

:smt1099


----------



## Steve M1911A1

TOF said:


> You are walking down the street after dark and someone comes towards you in a menacing manner with a gun in hand. You draw yours but in the process street lights come on and you realize the perp's gun has one of those funny orange pieces on the end of the barrel that indicates it is a toy gun.
> Do you blow the kid away so as not to be charged with brandishing?
> 
> Same general scenario: You draw your gun but as you do the perp drops his turns and starts to run away.
> Do you blow this guy away with a couple to the back and one to back of the head so as not to be charged with brandishing?
> 
> I think not.
> You should not draw unless you think you need to but keep an open mind about things cause, should a problem occur, it will probably not happen the way you expect...


If you're walking down a dark street, and someone is coming toward you with what looks like a gun in his hand, the first thing to do is to *go to cover*, and, in the process, then draw your gun.
This takes care of the postulated problem, doesn't it? If you're behind cover, your gun has not yet been seen.

The important point TOF makes with his questions is that you mustn't start shooting until you're really sure that your life is being threatened.


----------



## TOF

You got the general drift Steve but you may be on a street that has no viable cover or the Big kid may be 10 feet from you when you see the toy gun.

We can sit here and speculate from now on and not cover all posibilities some of which dictate shooting and some which do not.

Bottom line is the proposed law allows you to put the gun away unused if circumstances call for it without going to jail.

Stay safe

:smt1099


----------



## fivehourfrenzy

Something to keep in mind is that while people will black out the orange muzzle to make it appear to be a real gun, others will take a real gun and put some orange around the muzzle so people think it's a toy gun. If someone's pointing any kind of gun at me, unless it's plain-as-day that it's a BB gun or a paintball gun, I'll take cover, draw, quickly anazlyze the situation, and if I'm not 100% positive it's a fake gun and/or they stop pointing at me, I'll start plugging them. Obviously if it's an 8-year old playing cops and robbers, that's different. If it's a full-grown man in a dark alley that looks like he's up to no good, there's no real way to check that orange-tipped weapon without stripping it and finding out for yourself what it's loaded with.


----------



## Steve M1911A1

TOF said:


> You...may be on a street that has no viable cover...


Somewhere on just about all American streets there's a car. Cars are really good cover, if the entire car is between you and the putative BG.

Many of the US's streets have curbs. Dropping to the street, below curb level, is better than no cover at all; and if you're not too fat, and you lie as flat as you can, and the angle is right, it can be very good cover.

Or, you could add an entrenching tool to your concealed-carry kit... :mrgreen:


----------



## TOF

Steve M1911A1 said:


> Somewhere on just about all American streets there's a car. Cars are really good cover, if the entire car is between you and the putative BG.
> 
> Many of the US's streets have curbs. Dropping to the street, below curb level, is better than no cover at all; and if you're not too fat, and you lie as flat as you can, and the angle is right, it can be very good cover.
> 
> Or, you could add an entrenching tool to your concealed-carry kit... :mrgreen:


I guess I better give my guns away and start carring a cop on my shoulders.


----------



## Steve M1911A1

TOF said:


> I guess I better give my guns away and start carring a cop on my shoulders.


No, no, no...you're supposed to be carrying *concealed*. :mrgreen:


----------



## Wandering Man

Steve M1911A1 said:


> No, no, no...you're supposed to be carrying *concealed*. :mrgreen:


But he is ...

... its a very tiny cop.

WM


----------



## TOF

My shoulder Cop is concealed. He is an undercover Cop wearing crappy looking jeans and a torn shirt. Besides that he has on a balaclave to prevent BG's from identifying him. Nobody will ever know I am armed now. :mrgreen:

:smt1099


----------



## stormbringerr

Jon S said:


> Your question asks should you be "allowed". If BarbedWireSmile is incorrectly interpretting your question, then who are you implying is allowing or disallowing this?
> 
> There are many good responses in this thread, but even among those of us who have thought diligently there is no clear answer. All the more reason that we should each have the choice to decide for ourselves according to the situations we encounter.
> 
> The slippery slope argument is sometimes seen as overly dramatic, but with the irrational politicians around, how meaningful is concealed carry once they realize the 2nd ammendment doesn't say "right to bear _*and shoot*_ arms".


i agree, still whenever the powers that be go in our direction on a law, rule etc. it is a good thing


----------



## Teuthis

*Dangerous*

Pulling a gun to display it is provocative. It can escalate an incident rather than defusing it. I believe that a firearm should only be drawn when it will be used if necessary. Sometimes it might frighten someone to see your weapon, and other times it might simply make them more resolute to get at you.

In displaying a gun, you also give up part of the tactical advantage you have in possessing the weapon on your person. Tactical advantage is critical in a fight; much more important than what caliber gun you have.

The law under consideration in Arizona is spefically to keep activist judges and local PD's from arresting law abiding citizens who may draw a weapon and subsequently not use it. It stems from a case up in Phoenix and is a good idea, as a law. Displaying a weapon, in my opinion, is not a good tactic.

I recommend using tact, diplomacy, and even retreat if possible to avoid a physical encounter. Remember, it could result in your taking a life in a crisis that could have been avoided. Carry the gun concealed, and keep it concealed; then leave the ego and pride at home.


----------



## john doe.

I don't think there is really a black and white answer. It depends on the situation on hand. The varibles can change within seconds and one should be ready for what ever may happen.


----------



## rahlquist

fivehourfrenzy said:


> If someone's pointing any kind of gun at me, unless it's plain-as-day that it's a BB gun or a paintball gun, I'll take cover, draw, quickly anazlyze the situation, and if I'm not 100% positive it's a fake gun and/or they stop pointing at me, I'll start plugging them.


This is exactly why there are no toy guns allowed in my house except squirt guns in the bathtub. My 6 yr old hates it but she understands our reasoning.


----------



## Wandering Man

rahlquist said:


> This is exactly why there are no toy guns allowed in my house except squirt guns in the bathtub. My 6 yr old hates it but she understands our reasoning.


What?!

You're afraid of a visit from FHF? :anim_lol:

WM


----------



## fivehourfrenzy

Wandering Man said:


> What?!
> 
> You're afraid of a visit from FHF? :anim_lol:
> 
> WM


Be careful now...I may pay you a visit with a Super Soaker 5000 for that one! Those things can pack a pretty mean stream of water! :mrgreen:


----------



## Wandering Man

fivehourfrenzy said:


> Be careful now...I may pay you a visit with a Super Soaker 5000 for that one! Those things can pack a pretty mean stream of water! :mrgreen:


Bring it on!

:target: :smt066 :gib: :axe: :rock: :boxing: :smt170

WM


----------



## TampaSsgt

AZ Outlaws said:


> Yesterday, a House Panel in Phoenix, AZ voted 5-4 in favor of allowing people to draw and display their
> gun in public if they feel they were in danger. In other words, allow you to warn someone you were
> armed. In the past, you were not allowed to warn, display or draw unless you were in fear of your life
> and were going to fire upon someone.
> 
> Here is the article from the East Valley Tribune.
> 
> What do you think, do you agree... yes or no?
> 
> I have mixed emotions about it. I've been raised to walk softly, carry a big stick and use it only when
> absolutly necessary. In other words, don't pull a gun unless you are going to shoot....


I will use the same criteria I used when I was a LEO. I never unholstered my weapon unless I felt my life, or the life of another was in danger.

Below are the laws of the State of Florida I must obey.

The 2007 Florida Statutes

Title XLVI
CRIMES Chapter 790
WEAPONS AND FIREARMS View Entire Chapter

790.10 Improper exhibition of dangerous weapons or firearms.--If any person having or carrying any dirk, sword, sword cane, firearm, electric weapon or device, or other weapon shall, in the presence of one or more persons, exhibit the same in a rude, careless, angry, or threatening manner, *not in necessary self-defense*, the person so offending shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

782.02 Justifiable use of deadly force.--The use of deadly force is justifiable when a person is *resisting any attempt to murder such person or to commit any felony upon him or her or upon or in any dwelling house in which such person shall be. *

776.031 Use of force in defense of others.--A person is justified in the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on, or other tortious or criminal interference with, either real property other than a dwelling or personal property, lawfully in his or her possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his or her immediate family or household or of a person whose property he or she has a legal duty to protect. *However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person does not have a duty to retreat if the person is in a place where he or she has a right to be. *

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.--A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force. *However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony*


----------



## fivehourfrenzy

Wandering Man said:


> Bring it on!
> 
> :target: :smt066 :gib: :axe: :rock: :boxing: :smt170
> 
> WM


Yah know if you're gonna pack a bunch of RPGs, I'll just bring my Storm Trooper laser blaster and Jedi light saber. If you wanna go airborne, I got a TIE Advanced that'll blow you away.


----------



## knoxrocks222

i had a badge made that has my name and ccp on it, and i wear it right beside my holster when i am displaying my weapon on my hip, im not trying to look like a cop, it just gives a mental sense to the onlooker that i am not going to rob them 

on a second note i think if drawing my firearm to defuse a situation i will and if the fool wants to keep threatening me with another weapon i will destroy him


----------



## Todd

knoxrocks222 said:


> i had a badge made that has my name and ccp on it, and i wear it right beside my holster when i am displaying my weapon on my hip, im not trying to look like a cop, it just gives a mental sense to the onlooker that i am not going to rob them


Holy crap! I've never heard anyone admit to actually owning a CCW badge! Seriously though, you visibly display a badge and a gun??? Ever think that might get you into some hot water as potentially impersonating a cop?


----------



## js

Todd said:


> Holy crap! I've never heard anyone admit to actually owning a CCW badge! Seriously though, you visibly display a badge and a gun??? Ever think that might get you into some hot water as potentially impersonating a cop?


+1

I don't think "potentially" is the right word... I think just plain ole' "impersonating" would be more appropriate. :smt023


----------



## Todd

js said:


> +1
> 
> I don't think "potentially" is the right word... I think just plain ole' "impersonating" would be more appropriate. :smt023


You're right. I'd say 99% of the civilian population will think "cop" when you see a guy openly carrying a gun and this (nobody is gonna get close enough to read it):










The other 1% is going to be thinking :smt171:smt171


----------



## knoxrocks222

well my dad was the asst. chief of police in my city and he got one for me and told me to wear it if i ever have my gun on my hip. i am in school for criminal justice, my goal is to work for the TBI when its all said and done


----------



## Todd

knoxrocks222 said:


> well my dad was the asst. chief of police in my city and he got one for me and told me to wear it if i ever have my gun on my hip. i am in school for criminal justice, my goal is to work for the TBI when its all said and done


Whatever makes you happy, but I still think it could get you into some hot water. I have my degree in CJ and IMO, wearing a badge and gun _is_ impersonating an officer. I think you're going on the assumption that all LEO's interpret the law the same way, and that's not the case. Just because your dad thinks it's a good idea, it does not necessarily mean that a passing LEO that sees you carrying a badge and gun is going to feel the same way. I think you're you are setting yourself up for some trouble and the, "My dad was a LEO defense, he told me to do this" may not work. In fact it may work against you if they feel because of your dad's past position you should have known better.


----------



## oak1971

It would encourage good manners.


----------



## Mike Barham

The governor vetoed this bill: http://dustinsgunblog.blogspot.com/2008/05/az-governor-napolitano-vetoes-more-gun.html.


----------



## TOF

Mike Barham said:


> The governor vetoed this bill: http://dustinsgunblog.blogspot.com/2008/05/az-governor-napolitano-vetoes-more-gun.html.


Perhaps Obama will take Janet off our hands and we can try again. :smt076
He deserves her. God help us if they don't lose.


----------



## Mike Barham

TOF said:


> Perhaps Obama will take Janet off our hands and we can try again. :smt076
> He deserves her. God help us if they don't lose.


Well, I'd rather have "restaurant carry" than this bill, but with J. No, we'll never get either.

Senator Obama won't select her, though. He needs someone with foreign policy/military experience to shore up his weakness in that area. J. No has neither.


----------



## CLG

Around here just pulling a gun out in a tense situation is a Felony assault(unless you can PROVE you were in grave danger). While I dont really agree with that IDK if I have a good solution either. Thats a tough one.


----------



## Pat Az

I voted yes, for the most part a responsible person will do the right thing.
If no they can still be held resposible.


----------



## 54omle

Todd said:


> It couldn't have hurt. Even to just give a time and description of the car. Maybe they've had past reports before or if he does that to someone again, your report would help establish a pattern for this jerk and help put him away for a while if they ever caught him.
> 
> A car is definitely a deadly weapon. There was a case in VA a little over a year ago that involved a high school kid that lived down the street from my wife's uncle. 4 kids skipped the bill on food at IHOP. An off duty cop working security tried to stop them, they got in the car and the driver went at the cop, the cop fired, killing the kid from down the street (not the driver). It was self-defense because the car is a weapon and the cop was not charged. I think you would be justified to fire at the guy if you felt he was determined to drive you off the road. I do think it would help to have 911 on the phone telling them what was going on so there was a tape transcript versus just your account as to what happened afterwards. I don't think I would bother flashing the gun. The guy has made it clear he wants to do you harm; I'd probably just shoot in that situation.


Now let's muddy the water further. You do shoot and hit OR miss the guy and he swerves to get away from you. Now at such a rate of speed he loses control and either hits another car or truck, or causes others on the road to hit a guardrail or some other device along the road or leave the roadway and hit a tree. Now, I can tell you that YOU would be the proximate cause of the loss and in OHIO could be held liable in a civil court if not a criminal procedure. Now would your insurance be obligated to pay, well, maybe not as intentional acts are not covered. However again your insurance company may say they'll pay due to the "bad faith" possiblity on their part and your intent was to stop a threat, not to cause an accident.

in the case above where the security guard is clearly threatened yes it's a shoot decision, but, in a case where you are in a 3,000 lb car as well I don't think it's the best decision.

Just my .02 and I wasn't there and didn't feel the threat.


----------



## safetyfirst57

I agree with you 100%


----------



## LEO0313

If you felt a violent crime was being committed against you and drew your gun and chased the bg away, wouldn't the bg get away? Couldn't you shoot him in the leg? Or should you always shoot to kill? hmmm..... Not everyone who has a bad day, and doesn't like you looking at him and kicks your butt deserves to die. Maybe he just needs to be stopped and arrested.


----------



## LEO0313

I saw this video on youtube where three or four guys were attacking this cop. They were scuffling for a long while, maybe minutes. It looked like the cop was having a real bad time. But it looked like the cop never had any thought of ever drawing his gun. Why did he do that?


----------



## Todd

LEO0313 said:


> If you felt a violent crime was being committed against you and drew your gun and chased the bg away, wouldn't the bg get away?


Yes. What am I going to do? Chase him down and shoot him in the back? Threat is over. He's leaving. I shoot him, I'm going to jail as well.



LEO0313 said:


> Couldn't you shoot him in the leg?


You've seen too many movies.



LEO0313 said:


> Or should you always shoot to kill? hmmm.....


You shoot *to stop the threat *and you aim for the largest target; COM.



LEO0313 said:


> Not everyone who has a bad day, and doesn't like you looking at him and kicks your butt deserves to die.


I personally could give a rat's ass what kind of day someone is having! Anyone comes at me or my family intending to inflict serious bodily injury or death upon me, my wife, or especially my kids, when I am not the instigator; that person is going to be shot. Period.



LEO0313 said:


> Maybe he just needs to be stopped and arrested.


Maybe he just needs a hug too because he's having a bad day. :smt022Time for another reality check here. Police are a limited resource, they're not everywhere. They are _first responders._ By the time they get there, the situation is probably over. But tell ya what, you let someone pound you into a bloody pulp because they are having a _bad day_, and let us know how it turns out _if _the guy ever gets caught.

My troll alarm is starting to go off now, so I have to stop responding. Anyone else hear it?


----------



## Mike Barham

"Getting away" is _exactly_ what I want the bad guy to do. If he flees at the sight of my pistol and I don't have to shoot him, so much the better. I save a lot of hassle with the cops and avoid a six-figure legal bill.


----------



## LEO0313

Todd, I didn't mean to trigger your troll alarm (whatever that means). I will be more careful when I ask stupid questions or make stupid comments in the future at this forum.

sincerely, 

mr naive
5 day gun owner


----------



## zhurdan

LEO0313,
It may be a simple miscommunication. Not sure if your name is Leo, or if it implies that you "are" a LEO, meaning Law Enforcement Officer. I kinda got the alarm going off when I thought that it was the latter of the two.

Basically, you don't want to shoot to wound, hitting a man sized target under duress is going to be difficult enough for most people, hitting something as small as a leg would be near impossible.

There's also no point mentioned in the recent posts on this topic of NOT having to draw your weapon, by avoiding the situation all together. Now, assuming that you cannot avoid the situation, and it's life and death, I'm gonna shoot until they are down and out, deed! By the time you've made the decision to draw your weapon and fire, you are well past worrying if they are having a bad day, or if they just wanna scare you, or if they would run away if you just asserted yourself more. 

Most times, you can simply avoid the situation all together by keeping your head in the game. Be mindful of those around you and don't put yourself in places that would likely get you into a bad situation.

There, see, now we're back to where there's no stupid questions.

Zhur


----------



## Todd

LEO0313 said:


> Todd, I didn't mean to trigger your troll alarm (whatever that means).


A troll is someone who joins an internet forum with the sole intention of starting trouble. It would be like me joining a vegan forum and posting barbecue rib recipes. When a brand new member starts saying things like "Can't you shoot them in the leg?" and "If someone is having a bad day and kicks your butt, they don't deserve to die"; my radar automatically goes on full force as those are not your typical comments said by gun owners.

:watching::watching::watching:


----------



## LEO0313

I'm definitely not a troll. I am here because I need advice and help from people who have more experience with guns than me, which is probably everyone here..

Thanks, 

Leonardo


----------



## Todd

LEO0313 said:


> I'm definitely not a troll. I am here because I need advice and help from people who have more experience with guns than me, which is probably everyone here..


Fair enough. :smt023


----------



## Marcus99

knoxrocks222 said:


> i am in school for criminal justice, my goal is to work for the TBI when its all said and done


Looks like we're in the same boat, but I think you're father along in your studies than I am. I hear the FBI (I assume that's what you meant) is more into white collar crimes now, I'm not exactly sure either where I'll go with a CJ degree.

As for the badge, I think that's a damn foolish thing to do, despite the fact you may have good intention (The road to hell is paved with good intentions, eh). It's like buying a Crown Vic, painting it whatever the colors are for your town, putting blue strobe lights on the roof, crash bar in the front, 5 foot whip antennas and then when a police officer pulls you over you say "well, it doesn't say police on the side".

As for drawing in public, I suppose I'd be for it if it can prevent having to shoot and possibly kill another human. Hell, I'd be really pissed if anyone tried to hurt my mother or father, but I still wouldn't want to take that persons life if I could avoid it. I think the problem with drawing in public is the problem of bystanders or being mistaken for a criminal. Heck, if a lawfull carrier drew his sidearm in self-defense and I didn't know the guy I'd definately raise an eyebrow.


----------



## niadhf

Todd said:


> It would be like me joining a vegan forum and posting barbecue rib recipes.
> :watching::watching::watching:


i thank you for the idea. Next time a militant (imorptant word here) vegan or vegetarian starts questioning my choices with moral superiority....:anim_lol:


----------



## DevilsJohnson

Well..My Dad always told me treat a hand gun like my...well..you know,,..Ya don't pull it out unless you're gonna use it. 
I would worry about escalating a situation further by showing someone I had a gun. Plus the laws here in Ky make it a little difficult unless you are at home then the rules change a little. I didn't remember posting in here earlier. I hope I'm not repeating myself.

Now I know people that make no bones about carrying opting to use the open carry laws to their advantage here. I wouldn't not want to see a law changed about any of that but I would worry about just letting it all hang out like that:watching:


----------



## sticks

> Regardless of your opinion on this issue, the government must not be allowed to "allow" or "disallow" you to take such action.


Couldn't agree more and couldn't have said it better.


----------



## Dredd

JeffWard said:


> In FL, "in danger" is at risk of a potential First Degree Felony...
> 
> Murder, rape, assult... to yourself OR anyone else.
> 
> You can shoot someone who is threatening someone ELSE with a knife. If you feel someone is going to physically assult you, you can shoot. The law gets murky if I (a 240lb fit adult male) is "threatened" by an unarmed 135lb teenager... If that teenager has a knife? No question... I'm drawing. If he continues to advance, knife vs. gun, he's a good candidate for elimination from the gene pool.
> 
> He's the sticky-icky...
> 
> Say you are in liquer store. A thug assults the cashier with a knife, you draw to convince him to stop, and DON'T shoot (for whatever reason). He steps behind the clerk, stabs her, then exits the store through a crowd of people, presenting NO SHOT.
> 
> You've drawn, and not shot, and the store owner, the clerk's father, sues YOU for NOT shooting when you had the right by law.
> 
> The gun chased the thug away, but not before he assulted the clerk.
> 
> If you had NOT drawn, he still gets away, but you're now just a witness.
> 
> Makes you think...
> 
> JW


Well, I'm in FL too and as I understand it you may be agressive under the new ruling. What that means is you can use your gun to prevent a forced felony against either yourself or another person just as you said. It used to be that you had to look for an escape first. The thing is, I'm always afraid that if I draw and don't fire and someone runs away then I will be tagged as a "guy pointing a gun at people" by someone who only saw my gun and not the bat, knife, or what have you which was carried by the guy I drew my weapon against. In those cases it may be very hard to talk your way out. So for me, I always keep my weapon holstered and never draw it unless I am firing. If I draw and do not fire, I run the risk of the old woman claiming I threatened someone who turned and ran away.

Bottom line in my mind...if you make me draw my weapon I'm pulling that trigger. Otherwise I am not going to draw. I will give verbal warning to keep back if possible, only if I feel like someone is threatening, loud enough so that people near me turn and watch. They will then see the guy with a weapon and may even be scared off. If not well lets hope the next part never happens.


----------



## Mike Barham

Dredd said:


> What that means is you can use your gun to prevent a forced felony against...another person just as you said.


Just because you _can_ do something doesn't mean you _should_, of course.



> The thing is, I'm always afraid that if I draw and don't fire and someone runs away then I will be tagged as a "guy pointing a gun at people" by someone who only saw my gun and not the bat, knife, or what have you which was carried by the guy I drew my weapon against. In those cases it may be very hard to talk your way out. So for me, I always keep my weapon holstered and never draw it unless I am firing. If I draw and do not fire, I run the risk of the old woman claiming I threatened someone who turned and ran away.


I hope you can draw and fire as fast as Bob Munden, then. If you stand around and wait until you absolutely _must_ fire before you even start to draw, you are going to get clobbered. When the EMTs come to scrape your corpse off the floor, though, I'm sure they'll let the cops know about the pistol that's still sitting in your holster.


----------



## Dredd

Mike Barham said:


> Just because you _can_ do something doesn't mean you _should_, of course.
> 
> I hope you can draw and fire as fast as Bob Munden, then. If you stand around and wait until you absolutely _must_ fire before you even start to draw, you are going to get clobbered. When the EMTs come to scrape your corpse off the floor, though, I'm sure they'll let the cops know about the pistol that's still sitting in your holster.


You're not thinking about what I said clearly. Lets say some guy has a bat and says "hey sucka, you betta gimme dat wallet" and I'm like "nah I don't think so" and draw my gun when he is at a distance and he says "oh <explative>" and runs away. Then the old woman across the street saw my gun and nothing more. I'm gonna be in trouble when she calls the cops with my description. So I always make it a habit to get OUT of the area rather than have to fire. Like you said, just cause you can don't mean you should. I would obviously have my hand at the ready though and they can see that I'm armed. I'm just saying that I'd rather get out than have to draw if at all possible. Gun = last resort to me.

On the subject at hand I do believe you should be able to draw your gun, and if that is enough to deter a crime from being committed than good for you and nothing else to be done. Sometimes there is a situation or locale where this may pose an issue. Such as what I said before. Someone sees your gun and nothing else and well, you have some explaining.

Maybe I didn't explain myself clearly before.


----------



## Steve M1911A1

In the case of a guy with a bat, just ostentatiously peeling back your covering garment and grasping your pistol in preparation for a presentation, without actually drawing the gun, should be enough...if you include a loud and forceful verbal command to help him decide.
That way, nobody sees your pistol but him.
Of course, you have to follow-up with an immediate call to 911, saying that someone with a bat just tried to rob you. Otherwise, he may call 911, and turn you in for threatening him with a handgun.


----------



## Dredd

Steve M1911A1 said:


> In the case of a guy with a bat, just ostentatiously peeling back your covering garment and grasping your pistol in preparation for a presentation, without actually drawing the gun, should be enough...if you include a loud and forceful verbal command to help him decide.
> That way, nobody sees your pistol but him.
> Of course, you have to follow-up with an immediate call to 911, saying that someone with a bat just tried to rob you. Otherwise, he may call 911, and turn you in for threatening him with a handgun.


Sorta what I was getting at. I suck at explinations :smt022


----------



## unpecador

> "hey sucka, you betta gimme dat wallet"


----------



## Steve M1911A1

:anim_lol::anim_lol::anim_lol::smt023


----------



## DevilsJohnson

:anim_lol::smt082:smt038:smt170


----------



## Rob Greene

Perhaps a "Display" without actually drawing? Just to let them know that they really don't want to do what they're doing...
Drawing the gun doesn't mean that you have to shoot it. What if the BG takes off? Are you required to shoot him in the back? Of course not! I feel you should be allowed to counter the threat. The problem is when the BG says that he wasn't threatening you and you were in fact, threatening him...
ENTER THE LAWYERS...(or the Police Officer who thinks that if you have a gun you're the bad guy. Sadly, there are a few who feel that way)


----------



## Mike Barham

Rob Greene said:


> The problem is when the BG says that he wasn't threatening you and you were in fact, threatening him...
> ENTER THE LAWYERS...(or the Police Officer who thinks that if you have a gun you're the bad guy...)


Correct! This is why, as *Steve* wisely pointed out, we have to be the _first_ call 911. This way, we become the complainant in the eyes of the law, rather than the perpetrator. Big difference!


----------



## NRA.Hog

If we all wore uniforms that showed us as goodguys and badguys like in the early Westerns then I would say yes I would pull my gun. That does not exist so throw it out.

If it were a one on one situation me and him then yes.

If it were in a group of people and the situation suddenly arose I would say no. YOu don't know who is in the group or just walked up and sees one guy with a gun on another one then he might pull his weapon and take me out from the side.

I think it is all situational. It's a good thing we get that 1.5 seconds to make these decisions.:smt1099


----------



## wjh2657

I draw my answer from two "life experiences'

First, I spent five years working as the in-house teacher in a DYD group home (reform school) and five years as a Behavior Intervention teacher in a "Behvior class" ( in-building alternative school) I held many close conversations with boys who either had actually tried to kill or had been stopped short of killing. I became convinced that no type of threat will stop a psychotic or pathological killer. Showing a gun simply gives him something else he wants to steal and fires up his desire to attack and kill. They accept death and the fear of death does not deter them. Several of my former students have gone on to die in gangland gun incidents or risen high in the local criminal heiarchy by killing others ( so much for "rehabilitation"!). They are also a lot more prevalent than any of us would like to admit (we always had a long waiting list for the class!) 

Second, I spent part of my reckless youth in Japan and studied Kendo (Japanese Sword Martial Arts) and was briefed on Iaido techniques (Sword Drawing) Gaiijin (Foreign Devils) were not allowed at that time to actually take Iaido) The Japanese philosophy was that the sword was not for intimidation but was to used once drawn. Granted, that the sword was in OC mode at all times.

Both experiences have given me the personal belief that once my revolver is drawn it is to be fired. Ergo, regardless of any law, I will not draw unless I have already made the mental decision to fire. If I have allowed the BG to get close enough to me that I can't draw and fire, I have let him get close enough to take my gun away from me in any circumstance. Awareness and space between me and the adversary are my best defense, not waving a gun around and shouting threats. Just my personal philosophy, not meant for instruction!


----------



## dmdon

AZ Outlaws said:


> Yesterday, a House Panel in Phoenix, AZ voted 5-4 in favor of allowing people to draw and display their
> gun in public if they feel they were in danger. In other words, allow you to warn someone you were
> armed. In the past, you were not allowed to warn, display or draw unless you were in fear of your life
> and were going to fire upon someone.
> 
> Here is the article from the East Valley Tribune.
> 
> What do you think, do you agree... yes or no?
> 
> I have mixed emotions about it. I've been raised to walk softly, carry a big stick and use it only when
> absolutly necessary. In other words, don't pull a gun unless you are going to shoot....


I was taught that if you intend to draw, in almost every circumstance you should also be screaming "STOP STOP I have a gun, I will shoot". I am not sure that is what is meant by "warning" but I think that it is prudent to warn someone before you actually fire. I do also believe that you should NOT draw or display unless you have what a reasonable persone would believe to be immenant danger to yourself or others.


----------



## Mavrick

I've always believed that "they" should find out I'm armed when they see my gun in the muzzleflash. There is no reason for me to tell them they're doing wrong...they already know it. If the fact that they will be caught doesn't bother them, why would they be bothered by my yelling, or showing them what I have.
I would hope their reactions are fast enough that they can change for a new career choice. I would also hope that MY reactions are fast enough that when their change is made I can stop my triggerpull. Remember...the decision has ALREADY been made to fire.
There is no justification to use deadly-force safely. It is DEADly force! You use it to stop them from doing whatever it was that made you nervous enough to shoot them in the first place. If they die, it's THEIR problem... Remember, tho', you don't get to "finish 'em off."
If a BUG pops up and says "Give me the wallet, sucka!" give it to him,...You can't put enough in a wallet to be worth a man's life...even a BG. If he wants more, HE made the decision, not YOU.
If you need to think about his motivation, you're behind the 8-ball. He might be having a bad day, and need a hug, but it'll be God that gives it to him. I'm not good at forgiveness. 
If you don't think you can take another's life, you should have thought THAT over, BEFORE you picked up the gun.
I'm getting wordy...sorry.
Gene


----------



## wjh2657

Point to ponder: If you cannot later prove that the BG was actually committing a crime or was actually threatening you (his word against yours) then displaying your weapon in any manner can be construed as threatening him. Now he is the good guy and you are the BG. Not as trivial of a point as one might think.

What _you_ think is happening is only one part of the equation for consideration in a trial (civil or criminal). I agree with Mike on draw times, but we are not in combat nor are we on a practice range, In real life it can be very hard to convince others that we were in actual danger. In real life I would probably draw and fire but I still say you need to consider other options first. Keeping distance from your adversary (retreat or near retreat) and avoiding situations, if possible, should still your first line of defense, at least IMHO.

On the range and in shooting schools I have attended it is always assumed that you are already in a shoot situation, or you wouldn't be on the line. This is a dangerous mind set to assume in real life. Awareness should be tied to the plan to avoid threats first. Your second amendment right is either tied to defending others , _Military and LEO_, in which case I _don't need_ a gun (think about how the USSC would see this) or to your individual right to defend yourself and your loved ones ( the way most of us probably want to see this and the current USSC approach) where I _need _a gun!)

I really don't believe we have distilled down SD with a handgun for private citizen into it's true style of fighting. We have everything from open showdown gunfighting at 25 yards to to furtive shoot em in the head with mouseguns at 5 feet styles. I think we have a ways to go yet in really figuring out what skills a private citizen needs for SD. Self defense for a private citizen needs to be separated from combat training for a a Law Enfcorcement Officer. I don't have the answers and I am getting too old to be out looking for them, but I do think we need to find a more practical approach.


----------



## TOF

For the 78% that agree in the poll:

Now that we have rid ourselves of Govenor Napolitano we are going to pass, once again, the legislation allowing defensive display of a firearm. Ref. SB 1243. I am confident our new Govenor, Jan Brewer, will sign up with us.
We are also addressing "Restaurant Carry" and a few other related issues.

The only downside is that Napolitano has been unleashed on our nation and is continuing to ignore the fact a problem exists at our southern border. That however is fodder for a seperate thread.

In the meantime get ready cause the Mexicans are coming.*
*


----------



## 48dodge

TOF said:


> In the meantime get ready cause the Mexicans are coming.*
> *


Don't worry, they're just coming to legally purchase all of our automatic weapons then skirt back across the border to fight in the drug wars.


----------



## Agent Falco

I voted yes at first, but I've changed my unresting mind.

If somehow, I'm lucky enough to draw, I've drawn because someone has to go down. If i draw and fail to fire, or brandish, and the BG escapes to rape, murder and plunder someone not packing, I've put an innocent life in danger. And the BG will probably be packing something even more dangerous after seeing my piece and fleeing. 

As a civilian, I'm no situation diffuser or negotiator. I'm 5'8" 150lbs, and I'm SURE even with a firearm some drugged up thug will believe he can take me with a rusty switch blade, I'd just assume outrun him. I'd rather have my nose broken and wallet stolen then actually have to put someone down. And thats where dilemma lies. You can't risk a few blows and all of a sudden say "Woa woa woa. Gimme a minute here to catch my bearings and pull out my gun," if the poo hits the fan. 

The absolute best thing to do is to train your body to follow through with the decision your mind made. Flee or Fire. If I'm threatened to draw, its because I believe in my mind someone innocent is about to die. I just don't think that brandishing will dissuade most people who's lives depend on them harming you.


----------



## Mavrick

I realize I'm responsible for me, and therefore you're not for me, Falco. I have to make my own decision...
I'm 5'8" also, but the rest of the story is I'm 300#. I couldn't outrun a nose with a cold. If I allow a BG to get away to cause someone else a serious problem...too bad. I can't save the world. If it is near me, and I can do something...It won't be the first time I've stuck my nose where it hadn't been invited, and it won't be the last. 
I do agree with the concept of some form of training(practice) for NOT using, but I think THAT thinking should have been done before wearing. You know your reactions, or should.
Later, 
Gene


----------



## wjh2657

fivehourfrenzy said:


> Regardless of the jury, they're required by law to be objective about the case, and therefore should keep an open mind. While I stick to the saying, "I'd rather be tried by twelve than carried out by six," I still wouldn't wanna spend the rest of life behind bars. I've always been a very logical and reasonable person, and although I have some occasional emotional flaring, I know popping off won't get me anywhere except in trouble, especially when it involves a gun and someone else's life. If I draw and shoot, it won't be without a damn good reason I could present to a judge and jury and back it up with everything I've got.


Having served on several juries (civil and criminal) I can tell you that what is "required by law" has very little to do with a jury's decision. The people on a jury are by practice ignorant of the law and are deliberately picked to have no knowledge of the matter at hand. In short, gun carriers are going to be purged from jury by plaintiff's attorney in his challenges. ( I wasn't carrier at time of jury duty.)

Such juries actually *make* the law. Case law is the prevailing authority in most court cases, not the written law. Juries make case law. If they don't follow the law's meaning, their _new_ meaning becomes the law. Even if their decision is overturned in appeals court (very, very rare) the original decision still remains case law.

There are very good and sane reasons that this is so. Many laws ,when originally written, simply do not work in real life and the test of case law allows them to be modified to work. Don't get me wrong, case law is good and needed.

The real test of laws that we download from the Codes of the different states are actually very different when tested by court cases. Even lawyers that work with these laws don't really have that strong a grasp on them. The truest path is that of logic and prudence. Assume that the law (not law enforcement!) is going to be against you not with you and don't get too far away from the spirit of the law.


----------



## exercisemyright

Liko81 said:


> The best shot is the one you don't have to make.
> 
> If you can defuse a situation without firing a shot, you do so. That means up to and including drawing on your aggressor.


110% agreed:smt023


----------



## Pistolero

On the one hand, displaying your weapon to frighten off (reason with?) a potential attacker seems like a fine idea but, on the flip side, flashing your piece escalates the situation VERY quickly. I voted "Don't Know" becuase in some odd case the situation may warrant such an action but, truth be told, I believe it would be better to remain annonymous until the moment of truth is revealed, ie. the bastard decides he has no reason to fear you and begins a brazen attack. Unfortunately, not many people who carry have the training to wait that long before successfully engaging the threat. That's where the problem really lies.


----------



## Agent Falco

Good point Mav...But my fear lies in numbers. Imagine how many idiots you've encountered with a deadly weapon. A vehicle. Rage, ignorance, haste, oblivious, vengeful, fury, rash, not to mention just plain poorly educated and trained. Now give them a loaded handgun, and tell them whenever they feel "threatened" to pull it out. I just feel there are too many goobers out there who'd find aggressive name calling grounds for drawing.


----------



## kg333

Agent Falco said:


> Good point Mav...But my fear lies in numbers. Imagine how many idiots you've encountered with a deadly weapon. A vehicle. Rage, ignorance, haste, oblivious, vengeful, fury, rash, not to mention just plain poorly educated and trained. Now give them a loaded handgun, and tell them whenever they feel "threatened" to pull it out. I just feel there are too many goobers out there who'd find aggressive name calling grounds for drawing.


The "idiots with deadly weapons" that most people encounter and those people licensed to carry a concealed handgun are not the same people. Those I know who are licensed are probably some of the most responsible people I know, on the road or with a firearm.

KG


----------



## SaltyDog

First off this is a bogus poll - Allowed to display a gun???

Hunters display their weapons in the back of a pickup window, retailers display weapons at their stores, me I have a *CONCEAL* carry license.

If my family or I are threatened and the threat may result in bodily harm I will draw my weapon to deter the threat and if necessary use deadly force. In public or in private, that's why I have the license.

I'm not a Police Officer - I do not enforce the law. My concealed weapon is for personal protection. Like I learned in CCW class retreat, retreat, retreat. You cannot be the aggressor or you're going to go to jail. A verbal assault is no reason to draw you're weapon.

I have had a weapon stuck in my face a couple of times and believe you me - it's amazing how fast you can walk backwards.


----------



## Bisley

I wasn't willing to read 6 pages, before expressing my opinion, so somebody may have already expressed something similar.

I'm not in favor of any change in the law that would _encourage_ brandishing a weapon. Brandishing should only occur when a person has drawn his gun with the intent to fire it, but has changed his mind due to submission or retreat by the bad guy.

There are way too many folks out there who will, if allowed, carry a gun for the sole purpose of trying to bluff the bad guys away. My wife is one of them, and does not carry, for that very reason. She is absolutely unwilling to even consider the possibility of taking a human life, but would probably carry an unloaded gun...to bluff with, if I would let her. She is an intelligent person, but has no experience with genuinely bad people...not unlike at least 50% of the population.

My personal mindset is that I will endure a small amount of abuse, maybe even take a minor beating, if I don't think there is a danger of being maimed or killed...without drawing a weapon. This, of course depends on many factors and circumstances. But I will make a decision as to how I am going to react _before_ drawing any deadly weapon, and once I believe that I am in real danger, or maybe even if some other innocent person is in real danger, I will draw and fire my gun at the perpetrator, until the threat has stopped, or I run out of ammo..._unless_ the bad guy either surrenders or retreats, before I can get it done.

Of course, this is all conjecture, since people rarely are able to execute their well-laid plans, once the SHTF. Still, my personal opinion is that any other type of mindset will not serve you well, against any experienced predator.


----------



## wayno

Only as a last resort depending on threat.


----------



## macgulley

If it comes to the point that I need to draw my weapon, a law against displaying a gun is not my first concern.


----------



## leibdav1

I voted yes, but have several issues with regards to brandishing, etc. The point of carrying a concealed pistol, weapon, etc. is to protect oneself. Having said that, it's easy to see how it could get out of hand with people brandishing their weapon to anyone that scared them... that's not the point of carrying a pistol.

I carry a gun everywhere I go. I hope to god that I never need take a life, much less take it out of my holster in public. However, if I feel that a member of my family, friend, myself is under the threat of great bodily injury, I will not hesitate and eliminate the threat.

The potential for unnecessary negative consequences (mistaken discharge of your weapon, brandishing charge, etc.) is too great to say "I have no problem unholstering my weapon in public if need be." If the above statement is satisfied (great bodily injury...) I'm going to pull my weapon because I'm ready to use it. If the threat subsides, that's great, but that wasn't the intent of me pulling my gun.


----------



## fidalgoman

Of course you can, just before you pull the trigger and create a ragged hole in the BG. Most times you draw a gun you are going to escalate the situation and piss somebody off. That said “brandishing” has been known to persuade the BG to seek safer pastures. Most people who CC already know what the law says about it. :buttkick:


----------



## ericridebike

I think it would encourage behavior that would ultimately hurt out rights to be able to legally carry. There would be lots of cases of people drawing their guns over arguments, road rage, etc..., which would have the sheeple calling the police all the time about someone with a gun. I think this would hurt us in the long run. I think the laws are reasonable now. If you feel like a threat of "death or great bodily harm" is going to happen to you, then you can draw your gun. If the simple drawing of your gun stops the threat, you do not have to fire.


----------



## Benevolentshooter

I havent read all the responses yet. But, guns are for shooting if you draw and aim you shoot that simple. I was raised "you dont point a gun at something you dont intend to shoot". If your aggressor has a gun and you show yours without using it he can now back down draw his then reingage his /her agressive intent minus your advantage of drawing and firing first. Hey, thats just my oppinion, I could be right.


----------



## DeltaNu1142

Benevolentshooter said:


> I havent read all the responses yet. But, guns are for shooting if you draw and aim you shoot that simple. I was raised "you dont point a gun at something you dont intend to shoot". If your aggressor has a gun and you show yours without using it he can now back down draw his then reingage his /her agressive intent minus your advantage of drawing and firing first. Hey, thats just my oppinion, I could be right.


I'm not about to read all of the responses; but I agree with this post. I'd like to think that saying, "Look buddy, I'm armed and if I need to I will prove it," would be enough to get the positive attention/respect of any would-be BG, but that's not always the case. I don't think, however, that drawing your weapon just to non-verbally say "I can end you" is the best path to take, either. As such, I voted "I don't know."


----------



## Guest

DeltaNu... IMO there are situations where speaking is impossible and non-verbally letting a threatening bad guy know you can and will shoot if he continues to threaten.

ex. True Story- My girlfriends grandmother carries a revolver in her purse. She was in her car stopped at a light when 3 bad guys approached from the sidewalk with knives. She pulled her revolver out of her purse, they saw and they backed off. 

I understand that others probably have similar stories or opposite stories but IMO its better to try to defuse a situation by showing a gun than to let it escalate to the point where you have no choice but to fire. In certain situations pulling a gun and not necessarily firing seems advantageous


----------



## DevilsJohnson

DeltaNu1142 said:


> I'm not about to read all of the responses; but I agree with this post. I'd like to think that saying, "Look buddy, I'm armed and if I need to I will prove it," would be enough to get the positive attention/respect of any would-be BG, but that's not always the case. I don't think, however, that drawing your weapon just to non-verbally say "I can end you" is the best path to take, either. As such, I voted "I don't know."


I don't know where you live but a few of the places I have lived you say that your dead. You'll be shot and that's just that. If you're going to carry concealed then no one needs to know you have it until you bring that bad cat out. And if you do present your weapon you better be getting ready to squeeze the trigger.

Bad people do bad things and to say "hey buddy - I have a gun and I will prove it" is the last thing anyone should say. If you're not ready to deal with the situation then a CCW is not what you need. You might as well leave it in the car and tell them to hold on while you get it.


----------



## DeltaNu1142

DevilsJohnson said:


> I don't know where you live but a few of the places I have lived you say that your dead. You'll be shot and that's just that. If you're going to carry concealed then no one needs to know you have it until you bring that bad cat out. And if you do present your weapon you better be getting ready to squeeze the trigger.


Maybe I wasn't clear--I don't think one should draw (display) a gun unless they are prepared to put a round into something. With respect to "drawing a gun in public"--which is what this survey is about--to me, the answer is the same. Should people be _able_ to display a handgun/weapon in public? Sure, yes. The problem is, there's us (honest folk) and them--the type that might pull a gun with the express purpose to create fear & panic, ergo we have the prosecutable offense called "brandishing" for those bad people that don't quite get the chance to kill anyone or commit another crime. So I stick by my post and my vote of "I don't know." I'm smart enough to figure out what I'll do, but not smart enough to figure out what everyone should do.


----------



## hps

I voted "NO" You better be darn sure before you draw that weapon, and it happens in a split second. But that is what makes us CCW holders a little different than the normal guys/gals. I have it (CC Permit)to protect me and my family,that is all ,,,anyone else is on their own,not willing to possibly go to jail for the common man/woman.call it selfish or whatever I don't expect anyone else to protect me or my family... SORRY!! truth hurts

I carry daily, For me and my loved ones, thats it!!


----------



## DevilsJohnson

hps said:


> I voted "NO" You better be darn sure before you draw that weapon, and it happens in a split second. But that is what makes us CCW holders a little different than the normal guys/gals. I have it (CC Permit)to protect me and my family,that is all ,,,anyone else is on their own,not willing to possibly go to jail for the common man/woman.call it selfish or whatever I don't expect anyone else to protect me or my family... SORRY!! truth hurts
> 
> I carry daily, For me and my loved ones, thats it!!


I used to say the same thing. But the idea of watching someone get hurt because they don't share a marriage certificate or DNA I don't know if I could deal with. My wife and kids life is no more important than anyone's.

This thread is pretty old and I might be forgetting the OPs intent. I need to go back and refresh my memory some.

[Reread the OP post]

No I do not advocate the drawing of a weapon to warn anyone. Now if I was to draw my weapon and the bad person turns and runs I'm not going to chase them down because I have my weapon out and not have to spend a round. So that being said I guess in that case I have drawn my weapon and it scared someone. Though as in my earlier post It was not and would not ever be my intent.

Anyone that carried has to know that you are not always going to be whipping out a weapon and getting that hammer down ASAP. That alone will get you hurt or arrested with a quickness. Just like no one is going for a gun with one in their face you can't just get it out and shoot as fast as you can. So you un-holster your weapon and the BG sees it and runs..Great! that's one less round I have fired and I might have just saved my freedom. now if the BG decides that he is going to bring his weapon towards me there is no longer a choice in the matter. Someone is geting shot nad I'm going ot be working hard on it not being me.


----------



## hps

Your wife and kids life is no more important than anyone elses?? Are you serious? Do they know that?
Okay long story short,You walk outta the Home Depot A man and women are fighting to the point she is screaming HELP HELP you confront this male he tells you to "F" OFF and procedes to hit this female, you pull ur gun and then he pulls his,,,,,,Now what? you pulled yours first and he feels his life is in danger and shoots you. Whos side do you think the law is gonna be on? not yours you drew first. Bottom line ,,Mind your own business and call 911 and reports this incident. You would lose in this situation. Tell your wife kids they are no more important than and average joe walkin outta Home Depot, report back and tell me what they say!!! Come on bud , I have know idea who you are, this statement is way outta the park!!!


----------



## DevilsJohnson

First, I do not as a rule get involved in a domestic situation. The cops can do that just fine. If I seen the man had a weapon presented that would change things. I don't think I could just let some person get killed. I can't pull my weapon on a man for hitting his woman. Though if has a weapon out I can. Your opinion I guess is ti sit on your gun and wait for the cops and the coroner to pick up the body. The facts of the case are going to be the man had his weapon out. If he's dropped the weapon will be there not in his pocket or holster. Yeah, I'll take that chance. There's going to be a lot more than these two people and me in the home Depot lot to witness that little fiasco.

I'd say that if my wife new I waled away from a chance to help someone else she'd be more than a little pissed off. So yes, they know, I put a high value on life. I'm sorry you take such offense to such an idea. One of my base principals is that people are supposed to help each other. Maybe that's an old and outdated ideal but I'm a little old fashioned. You scenario I'm in say..A restaurant. A man runs in with a gun and demands money. I'm not with my family so I just let the guy do what he wants. Maybe thinks to shoot the 16 year old cashier because they are not getting the money fast enough. And me, with a weapon do nothing but hope he does not turn and shot me because I thought to pick up food for the family on my way home.

So now I say, Are you kidding me? These people because they are not my family deserve to die at the hands of some dope head because I am not attached to these people? No, that is not a way to life my life. I'll take my chance and not only protect my own life but those around weather my family is there or not.


----------



## DevilsJohnson

AS stated, my family does know my take on all this. And my family would be ashamed of me if I sat on my hands and watched someone get hurt or worse. Exactly as I would expect them to be. Maybe you can sit there and watch someone with a gun in their face, I can't. If me families safety was the only reason to carry a weapon I have no reason to have it unless they are with me. It has no use when they are not. I can just hide behind a table or in your little play I just walk to my car and the guy with the weapon your story puts on his person is used to hurt the woman or anyone else in the lot. Hell, in the rage you have this man in I guess he will not be shooting too well. He'll probably take out more than just her. But what the hell, not my wife, not my kids. Screw them, I'm headed to the video store for some action movies so I can look at my holstered weapon and think about how useful it is if a bunch of drug lords invade me or the neighborhood crackhead comes through the window.

No, in your version I do not need a holster for my weapon. I need to leave it home to protect them and them alone. I'll just have to wait and see if the crazy man comes to my house then he's toast.


----------



## Bisley

AZ Outlaws said:


> Yesterday, a House Panel in Phoenix, AZ voted 5-4 in favor of allowing people to draw and display their
> gun in public if they feel they were in danger.


It is completely irrelevant to me, because I'm not going to do it, anyway.

A LEO has some credibility, when he brandishes a weapon, because bad guys know he has had training and are on defense (or in retreat), in his presence.

An average citizen does not have that same credibility, and a genuine bad guy may take his weapon away from him and use it on him, while he is just getting cranked up to make his Dirty Harry speech.

My plan is to never, ever draw a weapon, unless I or someone I feel obligated to protect is in danger of being badly hurt, or killed. Then, if I do make the decision to draw my weapon, it will be because I have come to the conclusion that I have no choice but to shoot my attacker. I do not intend for my attacker to know I am armed until he is looking down the muzzle and seeing my finger squeezing the trigger. If he stops, I stop (if I can), but it's all on him, at this point. Any movement he makes that is not surrender or retreat gets him shot, at this point.

I believe that any other attitude, by a civilian, is completely unrealistic.


----------



## hps

DevilsJohnson said:


> AS stated, my family does know my take on all this. And my family would be ashamed of me if I sat on my hands and watched someone get hurt or worse. Exactly as I would expect them to be. Maybe you can sit there and watch someone with a gun in their face, I can't. If me families safety was the only reason to carry a weapon I have no reason to have it unless they are with me. It has no use when they are not. I can just hide behind a table or in your little play I just walk to my car and the guy with the weapon your story puts on his person is used to hurt the woman or anyone else in the lot. Hell, in the rage you have this man in I guess he will not be shooting too well. He'll probably take out more than just her. But what the hell, not my wife, not my kids. Screw them, I'm headed to the video store for some action movies so I can look at my holstered weapon and think about how useful it is if a bunch of drug lords invade me or the neighborhood crackhead comes through the window.
> 
> No, in your version I do not need a holster for my weapon. I need to leave it home to protect them and them alone. I'll just have to wait and see if the crazy man comes to my house then he's toast.


Good luck Wyatt Earp!!! 
The courts would eat you up!!! You need to rethink ur role. SORRY


----------



## DevilsJohnson

Wyatt Earp..That's pretty funny Barney Fife. Put it back in your pocket. 

Well, being I wont draw until I see a weapon it's worked out for me so far. Was in court not too long ago for a similar situation. And charges were dismissed. The family tried to offer me a job as a thank you. I'm sure the family is still pretty happy that their 16 year old daughter is still alive. Hopefully there will never be a next time but if so I'll do it again. I hope that if it's your family that has the barrel poking at them someone like me is around. I'd hate to think that someone like you will walk in and see the weapon, think to themselves "Who cares..aint my family." and slinks away.


----------



## Waffen

A gun is a tool not a toy. Do you take out a hammer if you're not going to drive some nails, probably not. Don't pull out a gun unless you are GOING to pull the trigger. 


JMO


W


----------



## hps

DevilsJohnson said:


> Wyatt Earp..That's pretty funny Barney Fife. Put it back in your pocket.
> 
> Well, being I wont draw until I see a weapon it's worked out for me so far. Was in court not too long ago for a similar situation. And charges were dismissed. The family tried to offer me a job as a thank you. I'm sure the family is still pretty happy that their 16 year old daughter is still alive. Hopefully there will never be a next time but if so I'll do it again. I hope that if it's your family that has the barrel poking at them someone like me is around. I'd hate to think that someone like you will walk in and see the weapon, think to themselves "Who cares..aint my family." and slinks away.


 Man you are a true cowboy:smt083, Do tell, I'd love to hear this story. Did you fire ur weapon? or just show it ?


----------



## Spartan

I drew a gun at work once. Not a fun situation. Why? Because I am such a poor artist my co-workers were laughing at me.


----------



## jump15vc

It seems that most of the replies reflect the same idea, and I agree If i feel that my life or someone else's is in danger, i will draw and be absolutely prepared to pull the trigger, if the BG runs away before i pull the trigger thats a bonus, but I wont pull unless i plan on shooting something


----------



## kg333

hps said:


> Man you are a true cowboy:smt083, Do tell, I'd love to hear this story. Did you fire ur weapon? or just show it ?












KG


----------



## spacedoggy

I said YES but the law in Texas is no. I am thinking about getting a tazor gun.


----------



## hps

Nope, notta troll just stating an opinion, Just because i have adifferent opinion than the majority i'm a troll, Hmmm:smt023
DJohnson and i have pm'ed one another, it's all good!!!
KG333, I was told by a wise old man ,along time ago " Never argue with an idiot, they'll drag you down to their level then beat ya with experience" anything else?


----------



## kg333

hps said:


> Nope, notta troll just stating an opinion, Just because i have adifferent opinion than the majority i'm a troll, Hmmm:smt023
> DJohnson and i have pm'ed one another, it's all good!!!
> KG333, I was told by a wise old man ,along time ago " Never argue with an idiot, they'll drag you down to their level then beat ya with experience" anything else?


These are your last three posts:


hps said:


> Your wife and kids life is no more important than anyone elses?? Are you serious? Do they know that?
> Okay long story short,You walk outta the Home Depot A man and women are fighting to the point she is screaming HELP HELP you confront this male he tells you to "F" OFF and procedes to hit this female, you pull ur gun and then he pulls his,,,,,,Now what? you pulled yours first and he feels his life is in danger and shoots you. Whos side do you think the law is gonna be on? not yours you drew first. Bottom line ,,Mind your own business and call 911 and reports this incident. You would lose in this situation. Tell your wife kids they are no more important than and average joe walkin outta Home Depot, report back and tell me what they say!!! Come on bud , I have know idea who you are, this statement is way outta the park!!!





hps said:


> Good luck Wyatt Earp!!!
> The courts would eat you up!!! You need to rethink ur role. SORRY





hps said:


> Man you are a true cowboy, Do tell, I'd love to hear this story. Did you fire ur weapon? or just show it ?


Out of your grand total of 17 posts, the vast majority are one liners or directly antagonizing other members in AOL-speak. In the absence of other evidence, you appear to be a troll, sir. I suggest you learn to state your opinion in a more diplomatic fashion, if you believe yourself not to be. If you feel the need to argue with me further on this, please send a PM and let this thread return to its subject.

KG


----------



## hps

Who said i want to argue? Don't get bitter,,,,,,, reconsider. Guess i'll stick with the one-liners and get on ur last nerve.


----------



## Oldman

*Getting to basics*

Without reading all these pages of postings, I will simply state that pulling a weapon does several things, none of them good.

1. A drawn weapon tends to escalate the event so other guns may be drawn and then used.

2. A drawn gun constitutes "brandishing" and that is against the law in most areas. You can lose your right to own a gun after being found guilty of brandishing.

3. A drawn or visible weapon creates more anti gun attitude in the perception of the public.

4. Most importantly, a drawn weapon may get you killed in two ways: a)either by the subject you pulled on or one of their accomplices; or b) by any officer arriving on the scene that cannot see your CCW or know for sure you are not the combatant. Even police officers in plain clothes are often shot by other officers due to identity problems.


----------



## TOF

The Bill in question has been restarted again this year. I believe many of you have stated opinions without knowing the content of the Bill.

Many self defense training programs suggest that you yell "Stop etc. I have a gun etc. as a means of avoiding having to kill someone that might stop the wrong action they are doing. This Bill does not require that you give warning but does not prevent it either. If you were to do so in Arizona under current law you would be brandishing and therefore breaking the law. Our Legislature is simply giving the "GOOD GUY" an avenue where they may, if the doo doo gets real deep, legaly draw without an absolute requirement to shoot. It is not a free ride, you still have to have justification for your actions or it can yield a brandishing charge.

If I hear strange noises in the night I pick up my trusty side arm or shotgun and investigate. The minute I step out my door to check outbuildings and vehicle I am technicaly brandishing. You City dwellers might not have outbuildings etc. and therefore not wish or need to check outside. Your lack of desire or need should not prevent those of us living 50 miles from the nearest police station being able to meet our needs.

I hope you will look beyond your specific location and lifestyle when forming your opinion as to what laws should or should not allow.

You are correct if you have concluded I support the Bill. :mrgreen:

I posted the Bill in early pages of this thread but it's recent reactivation and length of the thread is causing new viewers such as Oldman to skip over the original info.

I am including the verbage of the Bill, less header info, in this post as follow:

"
*SB 1243
- 1 -
1 Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:
2 Section 1. Title 13, chapter 4, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended
3 by adding section 13-421, to read:
4​​​​13-421. Justification; defensive display of a firearm;​
5 ​​​​definition​
6 ​​​​A. THE DEFENSIVE DISPLAY OF A FIREARM BY A PERSON AGAINST ANOTHER IS​
7 ​​​​JUSTIFIED WHEN AND TO THE EXTENT A REASONABLE PERSON WOULD BELIEVE THAT​
8 ​​​​PHYSICAL FORCE IS IMMEDIATELY NECESSARY TO PROTECT HIMSELF AGAINST THE USE OR​
9 ​​​​ATTEMPTED USE OF UNLAWFUL PHYSICAL FORCE OR DEADLY PHYSICAL FORCE.​
10 ​​​​B. THIS SECTION DOES NOT APPLY TO A PERSON WHO:​
11 ​​​​1. INTENTIONALLY PROVOKES ANOTHER PERSON TO USE OR ATTEMPT TO USE​
12 ​​​​UNLAWFUL PHYSICAL FORCE.​
13 ​​​​2. USES A FIREARM DURING THE COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE AS​
14 ​​​​DEFINED IN SECTION 13-706 OR VIOLENT CRIME AS DEFINED IN SECTION 13-901.03.​
15 ​​​​C. THIS SECTION DOES NOT REQUIRE THE DEFENSIVE DISPLAY OF A FIREARM​
16 ​​​​BEFORE THE USE OF PHYSICAL FORCE OR THE THREAT OF PHYSICAL FORCE BY A PERSON​
17 ​​​​WHO IS OTHERWISE JUSTIFIED IN THE USE OR THREATENED USE OF PHYSICAL FORCE.​
18 ​​​​D. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, "DEFENSIVE DISPLAY OF A FIREARM"​
19 ​​​​INCLUDES:​
20 ​​​​1. VERBALLY INFORMING ANOTHER PERSON THAT THE PERSON POSSESSES OR HAS​
21 ​​​​AVAILABLE A FIREARM.​
22 ​​​​2. EXPOSING OR DISPLAYING A FIREARM IN A MANNER THAT A REASONABLE​
23 ​​​​PERSON WOULD UNDERSTAND WAS MEANT TO PROTECT THE PERSON AGAINST ANOTHER'S USE​
24 ​​​​OR ATTEMPTED USE OF UNLAWFUL PHYSICAL FORCE OR DEADLY PHYSICAL FORCE.​
25 ​​​​3. PLACING THE PERSON'S HAND ON A FIREARM WHILE THE FIREARM IS​
26 ​​​​CONTAINED IN A HOLSTER, POCKET, PURSE OR OTHER MEANS OF CONTAINMENT OR​
27 TRANSPORT.
"

tumbleweed
*


----------



## ECHOONE

I voted no maybe due to how it was worded, to feel threatened is NOT the same as to be threatened for one there's a big difference! A state of ones mind is in question? secondly think about a scene were cops are just arriving and the first thing or person they see is you pulling out a pistol,. To each there own it's your life and your license,for me I draw when myself or someone is actually threatened not before and I draw to shoot!


----------



## TOF

ECHOONE said:


> I voted no maybe due to how it was worded, to feel threatened is NOT the same as to be threatened for one there's a big difference! A state of ones mind is in question? secondly think about a scene were cops are just arriving and the first thing or person they see is you pulling out a pistol,. To each there own it's your life and your license,for me I draw when myself or someone is actually threatened not before and I draw to shoot!


I have a real hard time understanding statements like this.

When I "FEEL" threatened it is because my mind is telling my body you are about to be hurt bad. Are you saying you will wait till the Knife penetrates your skin or the bullet exits your body so you know without a doubt you are being threatened.

Should we let the perp plunge the knife in an extra ten times if we hear a siren in the distance because we don't want the LEO to mis interpret our actions.

I could give a damn about my license if someone is shooting at me and I won't be pointing my gun at the LEO's, which I hope they will take to mean I am not directly threatening them.

As you say to each his own. RIP after you finaly decide it is a threat.


----------



## tekhead1219

TOF said:


> When I "FEEL" threatened it is because my mind is telling my body you are about to be hurt bad.


:smt023 Great answer TOF. If I feel threatened, it's not because the other person SAID he's going to hurt me, he is actually got something in his hand (lethal of course) and either headed towards me or produces a handgun. Just my .02...us older guys have to stick together.:anim_lol:


----------



## eastlandb1

Yes. Robert


----------



## DevilsJohnson

tekhead1219 said:


> ..us older guys have to stick together.:anim_lol:


eh!??!:smt082
heh...+1 there though


----------



## KS Trekker

TOF said:


> As you say to each his own. RIP after you finaly decide it is a threat.


We had a saying when I was a COP - "I'd rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6." Always err on the side that keeps you alive.


----------



## maddmatt02

even though ive been told by my dad my entire life, "you dont pull a gun until you are ready to shoot someone and once you pull it you dont hesiate, you shoot"

I think you should be able to pull a gun and not "have" to shoot the guy. if im reading it right. I dont think you should be able to just pull it if someone is threatening to throw a rock at you or something, but if somebody is posing a serious threat, I think you should be allowed to pull it and tell them to back off or else, and not have to wait until absolutely necessary, pull it and shoot em. also depends on if I think they are armed or not, if I for any reason think they are, im not hesitating. (of course I have to start carrying first, lol)


----------



## Bisley

maddmatt02 said:


> I think you should be able to pull a gun and not "have" to shoot the guy. if im reading it right.


Your dad was giving you the abbreviated version of a good plan.

Of course, if you pull your gun and your attacker immediately starts backing down, don't shoot him. Let him surrender, or even run away, if he is so inclined. Just don't let him equivocate in any way that could give him another opportunity to harm you.

The point is that you need to have your mind made up that you will shoot, if the circumstances that caused you to draw continue to prevail. A person coming under attack rarely has the luxury of knowing for sure what he should do, but if he has at least played out some likely scenarios in his mind, he will have a starting place, and that's better than no plan at all. One of the worst possible things would be for a person to draw a gun, and not know, himself, if he could or would actually fire it at an attacker.

Your dad wasn't wrong...it's just hard to tell a person how to react to a situation that can have so many variations.


----------



## clanger

> I believe many of you have stated opinions without knowing the content of the Bill.


Big +1



> SB 1243
> - 1 -
> 1 Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:
> 2 Section 1. Title 13, chapter 4, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended
> 3 by adding section 13-421, to read:
> 
> 13-421. Justification; defensive display of a firearm;
> definition
> 
> THE DEFENSIVE DISPLAY OF A FIREARM BY A PERSON AGAINST ANOTHER IS
> JUSTIFIED WHEN AND TO THE EXTENT A REASONABLE PERSON WOULD BELIEVE THAT PHYSICAL FORCE IS IMMEDIATELY NECESSARY TO PROTECT HIMSELF AGAINST THE USE OR ATTEMPTED USE OF UNLAWFUL PHYSICAL FORCE OR DEADLY PHYSICAL FORCE.
> 
> THIS SECTION DOES NOT APPLY TO A PERSON WHO: INTENTIONALLY PROVOKES ANOTHER PERSON TO USE OR ATTEMPT TO USE UNLAWFUL PHYSICAL FORCE.


Bingo- easy enough for me to undertand. And support. And I don't even live in Az.

Read the statutes and you'll find the words 'defense, reasonable person' etc. used more than once.

This thing is so cut and dried it aint even funny.

We can 'what if' this and other legislature to death, bottom line is each scenario will be different and what was the 'reasonable' thing to do?

And IF it stops a crime? Sure beats having to spend some rounds, clean up blood, go to jail, risk prison time...et al. What's not to support?

If I clear leather and the threat is eminent, and said threat bails before I fire? Good! Smart one's don't come back. 
I go back back to bed and the cops can finish their do-nuts. 
Aint no law in my book saying I HAVE to fire on every threat.

The last thing on earth I want is some inner-city scumbag bleeding all over my floor or a parking lot w/ my rounds in him.

Pretty sure The State feels exaclty the same way I do in that regard. For a lot of reasons.

Pretty simple really. (where's that EASY button?)


----------



## nailer

When I draw my gun, it will be because I have to. It won't be to brandish or warn. It will be a last resort not to be a victim.


----------



## mikecu

*Keep it concealed.*

I think it should stay hidden until you are going to use it.


----------



## Kyle1337

Brandishing I think is a big no no, It reminds me of the discovery channel and animals who bulk up or flare out to make themselves look bigger to scare the other animal off. But us humas have logical reasoning that seperates us from the animal kingdom. Remember people your brain is your biggest weapon. I talk people down with weapons all the time in my line of work, it works 98% of the time. However that's at work, if you draw a weapon on me in public if I have to pull it out it's to shoot the other person to stop the threat and I've already crossed that mental divide of shoot or not to shoot when I pull it. I am going to.


----------



## wjh2657

I took several MA courses in knife for defense before I started EDC with a gun. My personal option, and I only see this happening outside, in the dark, if the BG starts getting too close, is to draw the weapon (I pocket carry) and drop my hand behind the offside leg. I don't intend to show the gun but I do have it out and ready to fire if needed, the BG (and witnesses) just don't see the gun. This has been a long established technique for knife fighters. 

I would not try this in a well lit place or where there are people 360 degrees around me, They are going to see it and some idiot is going to yell "He has a gun!" and start the foray. In that situation, hand on gun in pocket,draw only when ready to fire.


----------



## Thewrench1082

I voted yes, more often than not it will de-escalte a situation. It's not so much a show of force, thats such a violent phrase. It's more of an "i'm not messing around" display. If someone showed their gun be it in or out of a holster most rational people would back off.


----------



## KS Trekker

Drawing down on someone for CCW holders (not sworn peace officers) should be a last resort. Brandishing a weapon without cause in my state will get your CCW taken away. The only reason to brandish your weapon in public would be if you or someone else is in *eminent danger of grievous bodily harm or death*. If you do draw down on someone, even if the situation de-escalates, you should call the police and report the incident immediately. Like I said, depending on your state laws, if you brandish your weapon in public without just cause, you may find yourself on the wrong end of the law. You would not only loose your CCW, but you may face a weapons/assault charge as well. I'm not saying that you should hesitate and get yourself killed either. Just know that when you present your weapon, you may have to explain it to the cops, the DA, your attorney (coming out of your pocket), the judge, and a jury of 12 of your "peers" (since they've been handpicked for your trial, none of them own a handgun or are members of the NRA).


----------



## BigBear

I am allowed to use my weapon under threat of severe injury or death. If I feel threatened with severe injury or death, I will draw my weapon, and assess whether I need to use it or not. I voted no because the question of "threatened with what?" wasn't clear.


----------



## TOF

I continue to be amazed by the number of people that fail to read more than the title of a thread before responding.

It's just like our representatives in Washington not reading the Stimulas Bill before it was shoved up our backside.

The title said it would stimulate it just didn't include the words and rape etc.


----------



## TOF

This thread can be put to bed as the Bill in question was signed into law by our new Govenor yesterday 7-13-2009

It will go into effect Sept. 30, 2009

Hip hip hooray :mrgreen:

tumbleweed


----------



## clanger

It's amazing. 

We share a border yet, it's like two completly different worlds a universe or two apart. 

I'm so moving back out there.....


----------



## falchunt

I don't know my local polocies here in OH, YET, but I will soon. IMO, the person carrying should be allowed (like AZ) to assess the situation and defend himself intelligently. If they can do that without shooting anyone, I think that's great. On the other hand, I do not think one should _plan_ to pull his gun out without intention to use it. This directly contradicts the rules of safety, and just isn't smart.

In short, there are situations where exposing your gun or sometimes unholstering would render positive results, and there are some that revealing your armed status would quickly escilate the problem. These situations are situational at best and require diagnosis, but I believe we deserve the right to pull our gun if thought necessary, and not punished if we don't shoot.


----------



## sig

If you draw your weapon your mindset should already be set to use it; not to threaten perps or make a big macho stand. That split second should I or shouldnt I will more than likely get you or somebody around you killed. That is one of the main purposes of concealment make your decision before brandishing your weapon and deal with the fallout after the fact. If you are concerned about the self inflicted mental trauma then you really shouldnt put yourself in a position by carrying a weapon. I know this sounds cold and heartless but that weapon you are brandishing has no brain; its all left up to the person that has placed his or her finger inside of that little loop and on the trigger. I personally know a select few people that have a CCL that shouldnt; they have it because it makes them feel empowered. They were so happy when they got their CCL; they went out bought all the gear a 1200 dollar gun and in 4 years have shot it once and that was when they qualified for the class.I find this very troubling in my opinion every CCL holder should be forced to qualify at least 2 to 3 times a year minimal. Iam for CCL but not if you are not willing to take the time to prepare yourself mentally and exercise muscle memory at the range. Iam not trying to hurt anybodys feelings but it is something we should all consider and pass along to other CCL holders; its a big responsibility. REMEMBER DRAW- POINT/AIM- SHOOT ITS NOT A GAME IT SHOULD BE A PREMADE DECICISION. Texas Justice


----------



## wjh2657

I follow the Bushido law as taught to me by my sensei in Kendo. If you draw your sword, it must be cleaned of the blood it has drawn. If I draw my gun it must be cleaned, because_ it has been fired_! You use your best weapon, _your mind_, to prevent the need to draw your weapon. If the mind cannot resolve the situation , then and only then you use your weapon, without hesitation. a samurai never drew his sword to show it to someone. He handed the sword, in its scabbard to the other person and there was am intricate ritual for that person to draw and look at the sword. It was returned, in its scabbard, to the samurai . The only other time the sword was drawn was for kata (practice) and for maintenance.

There was a heavy penalty attached to drawing the sword in public and then not using it. This was to prevent useless squabbles . The samurai could intimidate just by the presence of the sword on his side because everybody* knew *that if they forced him to draw, it was going to be a painful death for them.

I use same approach to CCW: Use mind first. Only if the measures of the mind don't work, will I draw. There will be sound of firing immediately after the draw.


----------



## TOF

wjh2657 said:


> I follow the Bushido law as taught to me by my sensei in Kendo. If you draw your sword, it must be cleaned of the blood it has drawn. If I draw my gun it must be cleaned, because_ it has been fired_! You use your best weapon, _your mind_, to prevent the need to draw your weapon. If the mind cannot resolve the situation , then and only then you use your weapon, without hesitation. a samurai never drew his sword to show it to someone. He handed the sword, in its scabbard to the other person and there was am intricate ritual for that person to draw and look at the sword. It was returned, in its scabbard, to the samurai . The only other time the sword was drawn was for kata (practice) and for maintenance.
> 
> There was a heavy penalty attached to drawing the sword in public and then not using it. This was to prevent useless squabbles . The samurai could intimidate just by the presence of the sword on his side because everybody* knew *that if they forced him to draw, it was going to be a painful death for them.
> 
> I use same approach to CCW: Use mind first. Only if the measures of the mind don't work, will I draw. There will be sound of firing immediately after the draw.


The Samurai did not have to contend with batteries of Lawyers. You are a century or two out of date.

I can only guess that you refuse to use the braking mechanism on your car also.


----------



## wjh2657

What does using the brakes on my car have to do with pulling my gun out to scare somebody?


----------



## Thanatos

wjh2657 said:


> What does using the brakes on my car have to do with pulling my gun out to scare somebody?


He was making an analogy.....


----------



## wjh2657

Thanatos said:


> He was making an analogy.....


An analogy requires a common premise from the _analogue_ to the _target_.

Brakes mechanically (_physically_) stop a car. They are not theoretical but a calculated physical force that will have effect on the movement of the vehicle.

Is it a fact of physics that merely exposing a weapon in the face of an attacker will _physically_ stop his movement or action? (It may have psychological effect but it *may not *have that effect. It isn't going to _physically_ stop the opponent. )

He was _attempting_ to make an analogy.

Points of discussion: 
(1) The argument that brandishing a weapon will stop a gunfight is akin to the argument that racking the slide on a shotgun slide will make a felon immediately flee the premesis. Neither is a sound principle of self defense because neither of them will have a physical effect on the fight. Showing a weapon and not firing it or waiting to load the chamber on a shotgun until your adversary can hear it are both _too little too late._

(2) In_ most _states the act of brandishing is not an accepted defense measure and is considered as an illegal act.


----------



## TOF

wjh2657 said:


> An analogy requires a common premise from the _analogue_ to the _target_.
> 
> Brakes mechanically (_physically_) stop a car. They are not theoretical but a calculated physical force that will have effect on the movement of the vehicle.
> 
> Is it a fact of physics that merely exposing a weapon in the face of an attacker will _physically_ stop his movement or action? (It may have psychological effect but it *may not *have that effect. It isn't going to _physically_ stop the opponent. )
> 
> He was _attempting_ to make an analogy.
> 
> Points of discussion:
> (1) The argument that brandishing a weapon will stop a gunfight is akin to the argument that racking the slide on a shotgun slide will make a felon immediately flee the premesis. Neither is a sound principle of self defense because neither of them will have a physical effect on the fight. Showing a weapon and not firing it or waiting to load the chamber on a shotgun until your adversary can hear it are both _too little too late._
> 
> (2) In_ most _states the act of brandishing is not an accepted defense measure and is considered as an illegal act.


What the law of another state allows is not material to this discussion as Arizona law does allow a weapon to be lowered and holstered if conditions change in the instant before killing an opponent.

The analogy is the ability to use your brain to activate an automobiles brakes in one case and deactivate your trigger finger in the other both of which stop a physical action.

The new law does not allow a person to wander through town willy nilly drawing or otherwise fondling their gun. That will still draw a brandishing charge.

It does however provide for not firing on a person that drops their weapon on the instant the good guy reaches for his gun.

You may have a fast draw but it is not zero time from reach to fire. A lot of good or bad can happen between those two points in time.

You are assuming (not a good thing) that I believe brandishing will stop a BG. That is your thought not mine.

Given your need for absolute facts I suggest you read the law prior to posting further. You just might begin to understand what it is about.

Have a good day.

tumbleweed


----------



## wjh2657

Do you really believe you can make a judgement to change your course of action in the time between drawing and firing? If so you must have the slowest draw in the world. The normal response of anybody would be to fire at the sight of the weapon, and in this case it means the bad guy firing upon seeing your weapon. This isn't IPSC with nobody firing real bullets back at you. You show gun, he goes into SD mode and fires at you will be the normal human response. 

State law isn't the question when you clear leather, staying alive is the issue. You draw your weapon and you have activated a gun fight. Criminals I have known (and I have worked in the correctional system) would not drop their gun in fear because you suddenly flash your wonderful $1200, stainless steel, combat modified Kimber. They are going to shoot at you. It isn't just the cop's gun that stops a criminal, it is his uniform and badge. You don't have either, you're just another guy with a gun.

Regardless of state law, human nature dictates that drawing your weapon should only be upon your decision to fire it, not show it.


----------



## TOF

wjh2657 said:


> Do you really believe you can make a judgement to change your course of action in the time between drawing and firing? If so you must have the slowest draw in the world. The normal response of anybody would be to fire at the sight of the weapon, and in this case it means the bad guy firing upon seeing your weapon. This isn't IPSC with nobody firing real bullets back at you. You show gun, he goes into SD mode and fires at you will be the normal human response.
> 
> State law isn't the question when you clear leather, staying alive is the issue. You draw your weapon and you have activated a gun fight. Criminals I have known (and I have worked in the correctional system) would not drop their gun in fear because you suddenly flash your wonderful $1200, stainless steel, combat modified Kimber. They are going to shoot at you. It isn't just the cop's gun that stops a criminal, it is his uniform and badge. You don't have either, you're just another guy with a gun.
> 
> Regardless of state law, human nature dictates that drawing your weapon should only be upon your decision to fire it, not show it.


Neither of us will know who is right till we are in a situation that tests us. I however appreciate the change in Arizona law that allows me if there is reason to believe it necessary to place my hand on and possibly draw my gun in a manner that doesn't require me to be as fast as Matt Dillon or Wyatt Earp.

I happen to believe you are locked on to one narrow vision of how a situation might occur. I attempt not to do that.

I see under some conditions placing a hand under your cover garment and on the grip as one more stage of preparation, not unlike strapping a gun on in the first place.

We are undoubtedly going to continue to disagree so i will simply wish you a good day.

By the way, those shiny Kimbers are purty but not my cup o tea. How many do you have?

tumbleweed


----------



## wjh2657

TOF said:


> Neither of us will know who is right till we are in a situation that tests us. I however appreciate the change in Arizona law that allows me if there is reason to believe it necessary to place my hand on and possibly draw my gun in a manner that doesn't require me to be as fast as Matt Dillon or Wyatt Earp.
> 
> I happen to believe you are locked on to one narrow vision of how a situation might occur. I attempt not to do that.
> 
> I see under some conditions placing a hand under your cover garment and on the grip as one more stage of preparation, not unlike strapping a gun on in the first place.
> 
> We are undoubtedly going to continue to disagree so i will simply wish you a good day.
> 
> By the way, those shiny Kimbers are purty but not my cup o tea. How many do you have?
> 
> tumbleweed


None. I carry J Frames and Glocks (.40 S&W) all pretty much stock and working guns.

I don't totally disagree with you and the option to be able to show your weapon could possibly be of benefit. We all have to adopt our own mind set on what we are to do, mainly because there will be no time to think about it when it happens. We each will develop our own comfort zones. Mine is based on 6 years in the combat zone and what my reactions and those of my troops were in ambush situations. Admitedly we were all a product of the same training so it is a _narrow_ perspective. I taught high school subjects for 9 years in a corrections environment and in my 66 years I have a developed a different outlook than most people on the mental makeup of criminal types .

I also have been held up at gun point (Chicago, of course unarmed!) and I remember my reactions to that. 
Other's experiences will be different and that will influence their SD mindset for training.

There is no one answer to how to prepare. If you live in the rural west, you probably will prepare for longer ranges and carry bigger guns. If you live in an urban/suburban area, you will most likely train for shorter ranges and carry smaller guns. Many, many variables. That is what makes these forums fun. It has been good discoursing with you.


----------



## chris441

wjh2657 said:


> That is what makes these forums fun. It has been good discoursing with you.


...and fun to read as well. Thanks for the good clean discussion!


----------



## SIGness

I voted no for no other reason other than how the question was worded. Here in Michigan, the word displayed can be misconstrued as "brandishing". In which case you will go to jail, you will surrender your firearm, and you will loose your CPL. And potentially alot of other things as well. This in itself could be a slippery slope, follow your training techniques and the 21' rule.

This is why it is so important to practice, practice, practice! The more confident you are in your capabilities of getting your weapon to the ready position, means the less possibility of a terrible mishap.


----------



## Freedom1911

BarbedWireSmile said:


> I voted yes for a very simple reason.
> 
> Regardless of your opinion on this issue, the government must not be allowed to "allow" or "disallow" you to take such action. Every time we permit the goverment to "allow" or "disallow" we fall farther down that slippery slope.


AMEN AMEN.
I have a good friend that did just this when confronted by a group who was acting threateningly toward him, they wanted money and when he said he did not have any, they did not like the answer and began to approach him.

He just pulled his gun out so they could see it and said the discussion was over and he was leaving. They backed down and he left in his car.
They followed him in their car for a short while but he gave them the slip thanks to a opportunely timed green light.
But just showing the gun caused the group to stop. Their by stopping a possible robery or beating before it started.
I would like to point out that my friend never pointed the gun at anyone, he just exposed the gun for the thugs to see. 
Showing the gun did the job without having to fire and no one died.


----------



## 48dodge

I'm surprised that someone that is willing to break the law by mugging someone actually obeyed a traffic signal:smt082


----------



## nUgZ

48dodge said:


> I'm surprised that someone that is willing to break the law by mugging someone actually obeyed a traffic signal:smt082


Sometimes you just know when enough is enough...:anim_lol:


----------



## trob_205

yes for one simple reason...that is that the only reason i carry a gun is for self defense...we as americans have a right to carry and people that are a threat to me have a right to know i carry:smt1099


----------



## dpdtc

I have been trained to shoot until the threat is stopped. In my opinion this includes 0 shots fired to stop the threat. I do not believe that we should be able to be prosecuted for a crime if we draw our weapon and the threat is stopped. That being said I have never been in a situation where I thought I should draw my weapon or wish I had a weapon to draw. I pray that situation never arises but I am prepared if it does.
I will follow my training and if the situation arises I will draw my weapon to protect myself or another from immenent bodily harm or death. If I ever draw it will be Sights On Slack Up just that fast. The BG determines what happens next. 
All these what ifs, and I read all of them, don't mean anything if *YOU* are not there to determine at that time what action needs to take place.
I voted Yes and I am glad your state passed that legislature to protect the Good Guys.


----------



## copyoftheoriginal

*This a tough question*

I voted yes. 
Then I thought about it some more and I wondered if I wouldn't be putting myself in more danger showing a weapon I wasn't absolutely going to use. 
Most people never know I have a weapon. I like it that way. If I pull it I use it. If I kill it I eat it.

After all I am a" copy of the original" it's what he taught me.


----------



## sheepdog

*I love the AZ law..*

...and wish it would be a law in Tx, also...well written and protects those who do what's necessary without encouraging unnecessary gun-waving...
...I've had two occasions as a citizen where displaying (0ne) and drawing(One) stopped the problem and kept me from having to shoot...they were rare happenings...
...I've had dozens of occasions as an officer where drawing and aiming my weapon kept me from having to shoot someone because they gave up...
...I believe if you are sure that if you don't show that you have a weapon you will be attacked/robbed...you should have the right to show it...even to draw it...but you MUST be prepared to shoot if the threat doesn't stop...or you will have it taken from you and used on you...so if you're in a situation that you initiated...forget the gun and run...it's your bad and stuff your pride...having said that...I would show the gun or draw it to save my life and cause the person to think again and stop the threatening activity...if he did...file a police report and go on with life...if the showing or drawing did not stop him...shooting would be next...

...I also believe there are situations where there is no time to wait and see what they'll do...it's already gone so far that you simply draw and stop the threat by shooting....there is no one-way-fits-all-situation answer...
...congratulations to AZ for their step in the right direction!!!


----------



## Parikh1234

I really think you should be able to draw it.


----------



## wjh2657

Drawing your weapon and showing it can be construed as a threatening move, thereby giving somebody else legal justification to act in self defense by shooting _you_. Depending on who you have pointed that gun at and who the witnesses nearby are actually supporting, you could be the aggressor and started a gunfught. this would be regardless of any applicable state laws. You most definetly do not want to be considered the aggressor in any court situation, criminal or civil.


----------



## pic

We had a recent high publicity trial involving a shooting in my area. Like to hear some opinons about this.
This is very concerning.
http://www.13wham.com/news/local/story/Roderick-Scott-911-Calls-Released/Vlw9IKZN20eUQtYu49l4_Q.cspx


----------



## righttoown

trob_205 said:


> yes for one simple reason...that is that the only reason i carry a gun is for self defense...we as americans have a right to carry and people that are a threat to me have a right to know i carry:smt1099


Nuff said! :smt023


----------



## Martywj

Yes, if drawing my gun can defuse situation without resorting to deadly force then that is better in my opinion.
Marty


----------



## gunsite

Wandering Man said:


> "Feeling Threatened" is pretty subjective. And once unholstered a negligent discharge becomes much more likely. I agree with Todd, don't pull the gun unless you are ready to use it. Once pulled, not having to use it is a plus. But at what point do you "feel threatened" enough to pull the gun but not shoot?
> 
> WM


exactly... being threaten can be subjective, drawing your weapon can be a advantage, but also dangerous. If you draw your weapon on me and don't shoot, but thought i was a threat, can i turnaround a press charges against you, can the legalities turn against you by pointing a gun at me when at the time i banish NO weapon.


----------



## kg333

Freedom1911 said:


> AMEN AMEN.
> I have a good friend that did just this when confronted by a group who was acting threateningly toward him, they wanted money and when he said he did not have any, they did not like the answer and began to approach him.
> 
> He just pulled his gun out so they could see it and said the discussion was over and he was leaving. They backed down and he left in his car.
> They followed him in their car for a short while but he gave them the slip thanks to a opportunely timed green light.
> But just showing the gun caused the group to stop. Their by stopping a possible robery or beating before it started.
> I would like to point out that my friend never pointed the gun at anyone, he just exposed the gun for the thugs to see.
> Showing the gun did the job without having to fire and no one died.


I think this is an interesting situation as far as the idea of "drawing but not firing" goes. The defender in this case could reasonably assume he was in danger of grievous harm, as he was being threatened by a group of attackers. However, since none of them were openly armed, shooting those threatening him could be difficult to defend legally. Making it clear that you are in a position to defend yourself if they proceed to attack, and that you are not an easy target, seems to provide a good answer in this scenario, IMO.

KG


----------



## gunsite

Understanding the levels of force will also help you legally if you end up in court for some reason. The first level of force is visual, exposing/showing your weapon, the second level of force is verbal, instructing/directing/warning your target. 

Example: A police officer/radio car standing fast is a visual use of force, directing/instructing the public is verbal use of force.

Without getting into all the variables, by you showing your weapon, and then warning/instructing your targets and then having to shoot... gives you stronger case in using deadly force. 

Your testimony leading up to your first shot gives you better creditability that your life was in danger by multiple targets, even after displaying/proving/instructing you would defend yourself... and this is important... you gave your targets a chance to make the decision of stopping/retreat/turning away. 

There are 100 more variables we could mention or throw into this situation.


----------



## wjh2657

"There are 100 more variables we could mention or throw into this situation."

I am not a lawyer, but I have sat on a goodly number of juries. I ( I don't win lotteries but I sure do win jury draws!)

No matter what the laws pertaining to the use of your weapon are, you _can_ still lose a criminal case. I'm not supporting this, but I have seen it go against what was IMHO honest people doing the right thing. Once you are in a public area ( no Castle Law here!) the laws all favor the BG.

Everybody on the forums seems to have the rather naive assumption that the law has to prove that you _did not_ have reasonable fear for your life. They don't. Once you are brought up on the charge of assault with a deadly weapon (remember assault can be just _showing_ your weapon)the state/ prosecuting attorney has already dismissed that factor by pursuing your indictment. As far as the state is concerned, you are not a self defense case, or you wouldn't be in the court room to begin with. To counter the state, *you* have to prove you_ were _actually in danger. Since there were more of them than you, the numbers are against you in the testimony. You get to talk once and they all get to talk. They will also have all of their family present (and clergy) willing to testify that they are fine church-going citizens who love their parents and couldn't harm a fly. They won't look like scumbags either, the prosecutor will make sure they all have nice clean respectable clothing on(this is based on actual testimony I have seen/heard in the progress of jury duty.) If this all seems like a fantasy, you need to sit in on some criminal trials: _they are fantasy_! I have heard more believable stories from very guilty little 3 year olds than I heard in those courtrooms.

Will you go to jail, probably not but assault with a deadly weapon is a felony is most states, so your HCP could be gone for good.

Again, I don't endorse or agree with this outcome, but my experience has shown that it is _feasible_ ( not necessarily _has_ to happen.) Again it would depend on community values, prosecutor's career pattern (single strongest factor in criminal trials!) and jury demographics.

You have to do what you have to do to keep alive, but just be aware that just because a law says you _may_ do something it doesn't mean you _can_ do something. this is especially true in court.

Remembering that anytime you draw your gun, you could lose it and the right to carry it, should temper your judgement in drawing the gun, _unless there is no other way out_.

This is not the word of law, just an old man's observations.


----------



## VasSigmeister

I dont know if this has been said, but, I think that anyone who has had the proper training and is qualified to carry a firearm should be able to decipher the situation for themselves... 

Just my .02


----------



## wjh2657

VasSigmeister said:


> I dont know if this has been said, but, I think that anyone who has had the proper training and is qualified to carry a firearm should be able to decipher the situation for themselves...
> 
> Just my .02


As the main argument on these forums is that everybody should be qualified to carry a gun (2d Amendment) then we have to assume everybody is by birth lucid enough to properly and safely decipher all situations by themselves.

I guess that we can close down all of the mental institutions and take the word psychopath out of the dictionary.

We can't have it both ways: either a process to limit firearms to sane people who obey conventions or believe that nobody out there will do us harm (where did all the bad guys come from?)


----------



## VasSigmeister

I see what you are saying I guess what i meant to say is, a person who has their ccw and is carrying legally, and for the right reasons, like someone who is on this forum for instance, then they should be able to discern whether the situation calls for the drawing of the weapon... Guess I could word it better... sorry


----------



## wjh2657

I wasn't trying to_ dis _you and you did understand the point.

The current practice in some states is to require a knowledge of the state laws in order to carry. Under those conditions I agree to a great extent with your original post. However, if we allow "blanket carry" , as it would really seem the 2nd Amendment actually intends, then we need a screening process of additional laws to prohibit or punish those who abuse the practice so as to limit their actions and remove their weapon carrying ability after proven unfit to be armed.

Both practices have their merits, with the second seeming more in line with the COTUS, but you can't have half of one and half the other.

OP was good thought but predicated on issue with checks and restrictions in the licensing process. This is _one_ reason that some states restrict recipricocity, fear of carry without knowledge of law.

Tennessee HCP is recognized in 37 states, primarily because it does require knowledge of the law before licensing. I am not saying this by far the _best_ approach or the one the most in line with 2d Amendment of the COTUS, but it is the most in line with TN Constitution and seems to be recognized as a good step by other states.

I believe in the "will issue" school but I also believe that the bearer of a handgun must be held to a higher standard when it comes to obeying other laws.


----------



## VasSigmeister

I see, I completely agree. 
But then again if everyone who carried a gun did it for the right reasons, there wouldn't be bad guys... 

So what you said makes perfect sense.


----------



## Gunners_Mate

I voted yes. Hopefully I'll have the time later to go through and read all the 9 pages of posts, but for now I'm forced to try and give a brief reason why (due to time constraints) before seeing if someone else hasn't already posted it, so if they have I apologize. 

In my training we have something known as escalation of force. if someone trying to get past my post is merely being verbally agressive I am not allowed to shoot them (ie escalate to deadly force). I have to use soft control's and escort the person away from my post or into custody, depending on the ROE at the time (rules of engagement). 

now if the person in question is obviously very angry, and wants to get past my post, I have to put myself in their way. There are already going to have been close quarters due to having checked id, so it's kind of a crappy situation. Until they pull a weapon, or physically try to get past me I cannot escalate above soft controls. now, if they walk towards me as if they were forcefully going to remove me from my post, then I may both put my hand to my weapon in it's holster and let it sit there, quietly but very effectively putting forth the threat, or I can draw and announce that if they come any further I will be forced to use deadly force. this is all dependent upon ROE of course, sometime it is and is not allowed. 

but due to this training I understand the value of the threat to use deadly force. Much is the same reason I always carry a relatively large pocket knife, drawing a knife and letting the attacker/mugger or whomever know that they are going to get to get past a person with teeth could dissuade them long before they even try. whose to say angry guy who wants to get past my post is intending to set up a bomb, but has NO desire to be near it when it goes off and therefor knowing that I'm going to have to put a bullet in his head (cough, I mean belly, cough) before he can achieve his goal he no longer desire's to accomplish his goal through such means any longer, and is now forced to figure out a different way. maybe he doesn't figure out a way and retires his terrorist pursuits, maybe he figures out a way and is recognized from the photos my fellow watch stander took and added to the list of persons of interest and was thus thwarted again. 

the overall idea being that deadly force is the highest level of force, period. drawing a weapon is relatively harmless, it presents only the opertunity and possibility of deadly force, but not the promise. the only promise is that if bad guy still decides to come at you or endanger your life (or anyone's around you) then you've already drawn and it's that much quicker to take them out. 

granted you may be put into a situation where someone is theiving yourstuff but does not have a weapon, and you've already drawn and later found out they are unarmed, and you might be forced to watch them steal your stuff knowing that legally you can't shoot them. however people have a tendancy to break laws and mr. steal your stuff know's this. you may be able to protect your property without firing a shot. 

laws vary from state to state, and every situation is different, but one way or the other I want to be able to draw and not have to use force unless I have to. 

just wondering though, what happens when you draw and later get sued for holding someone hostage? You were of course just trying to ensure your own safety and such until cops came, or they left your property but I'm still sure it'll happen sometime, if a precedence hasn't already been set.


----------



## Zertek

I agree you should be able to.


----------

