Full compliance with law but got arrested anyway

Here’s my story. I was in full compliance with Utah law regarding informing another of my gun possession. I did not threaten, and I complied with every other part of Utah Code 76-10-506. I even tried to get away from the road rage guy, but he crossed lanes and followed me for 10 miles, increasing the tension. Then I got arrested, not him. Go figure. Would appreciate any advice. Gun law -- Wrongful arrest, organized by Randall Wright

1 Like

Hello and welcome @provoeditor
Sorry to hear your predicament.

“Eventually, he called the police, and they flagged me on the freeway, pointed guns at me, arrested me for brandishing a weapon, and took me to jail. Funny enough, I was just preparing to call the police myself.”

It seems to always be whoever contacts the police first and describes the situation is in the right, not always .
As far as Utah law and being able to “show” your firearm, not in an intimidating way, do you now look back and see that might have not been the best move? I understand the road rage driver, we get all the California crazies driving in here(no offense to our law abiding, sane, CA members here)but was your life directly and immediately in danger, could you have done anything differently to have avoided showing the driver your firearm?
Don’t get me wrong, I believe this to be a teaching moment.


It’s a race


@Mike164, it happened in Utah🤔

1 Like

Yea, Utah County. Hard to tell what this is all about. I have the same understanding of the law but one must remember, threatening manner is really really subjective. My guess and hope is a jury will see it his way.


I would delete this immediately

I would not post details of this unresolved criminal case online, anywhere


Welcome to the Community :handshake:

Not a good start and introduction… but this is the life of Armed Citizen.

As other mentioned you must understand the Police doesn’t interpret but reacts and do proper action.
Everything would might be different when you call the Police while the guy was chasing you.
Now you can imagine who would be stoped by Police…
Thanks for sharing the story, it’s another prove that sometimes overthinking and overreacting are very bad advisors.

I’m hoping for happy ending here.
Good luck.


Welcome to the family and I am praying this all works out for you. Keep the faith.


Dash cam… saved me from a RR dork who side-swiped me and then told the police I hit him… my dash cam cost him $1000 reimbursement of my deductible, a citation for no proof of insurance, a citation for expired registration and one for reckless driving.


I guess my question would be whether anyone actually has rights under the law if they never exercise them. What would be the point of having laws at all?


What I find amazing is that, according to your own story it states, “So I held up a pistol calmly and without anger…”

That would be considered brandishing bud. Utah Law requires you to identify that you’re armed if you’re speaking to another person (or yelling). That doesn’t allow you to draw your firearm and show it to the person in another vehicle who is upset with you.

The very definition is:




gerund or present participle: brandishing

  1. wave or flourish (something, especially a weapon) as a threat or in anger or excitement.

You broke the law and were NOT in “full compliance with Utah law…”


His story states held up his pistol to show the other guy who was road raging at him. That’s brandishing a firearm. Had nothing to do with who called first. The guy brandished his pistol and broke the law.


I can only guess here also but I think the police view showing someone a gun is more of an escalation than a de- escalation. If he was using his auto as a weapon than I can see showing the gun to de-escalate. I think that can be your defense but not a lawyer.


I’m going by what Utah states unless USCCA’s not up to date?


The Law as Written:

Index Utah Code
Title 76 Utah Criminal Code
Chapter 10 Offenses Against Public Health, Safety, Welfare, and Morals
Part 5 Weapons
Section 506 Threatening with or using dangerous weapon in fight or quarrel.

(Effective 5/14/2019)|

Effective 5/14/2019
76-10-506. Threatening with or using dangerous weapon in fight or quarrel.

(1) As used in this section:

(a) “Dangerous weapon” means an item that in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of causing death or serious bodily injury. The following factors shall be used in determining whether an item, object, or thing is a dangerous weapon:

(i) the character of the instrument, object, or thing;

(ii) the character of the wound produced, if any; and

(iii) the manner in which the instrument, object, or thing was exhibited or used.

(b) “Threatening manner” does not include:

(i) the possession of a dangerous weapon, whether visible or concealed, without additional behavior which is threatening; or

(ii) informing another of the actor’s possession of a deadly weapon to prevent what the actor reasonably perceives as a possible use of unlawful force by the other and the actor is not engaged in any activity described in Subsection 76-2-402(3)(a).

(2) Except as otherwise provided in Section 76-2-402 and for an individual described in Section 76-10-503, an individual who, in the presence of two or more individuals, and not amounting to a violation of Section 76-5-103, draws or exhibits a dangerous weapon in an angry and threatening manner or unlawfully uses a dangerous weapon in a fight or quarrel is guilty of a class A misdemeanor.

(3) This section does not apply to an individual who, reasonably believing the action to be necessary in compliance with Section 76-2-402, with purpose to prevent another’s use of unlawful force:

(a) threatens the use of a dangerous weapon; or

(b) draws or exhibits a dangerous weapon.

(4) This section does not apply to an individual listed in Subsections 76-10-523(1)(a) through (f) in performance of the individual’s duties.

And There’s This:

Index Utah Code
Title 76 Utah Criminal Code
Chapter 2 Principles of Criminal Responsibility
Part 4 Justification Excluding Criminal Responsibility
Section 402 Force in defense of person – Forcible felony defined.

(Effective 5/4/2022)|

Effective 5/4/2022
76-2-402. Force in defense of person – Forcible felony defined.

(1) As used in this section:

(a) “Forcible felony” means aggravated assault, mayhem, aggravated murder, murder, manslaughter, kidnapping and aggravated kidnapping, rape, forcible sodomy, rape of a child, object rape, object rape of a child, sexual abuse of a child, aggravated sexual abuse of a child, and aggravated sexual assault as defined in Chapter 5, Offenses Against the Individual, and arson, robbery, and burglary as defined in Chapter 6, Offenses Against Property.

(b) “Forcible felony” includes any other felony offense that involves the use of force or violence against an individual that poses a substantial danger of death or serious bodily injury.

(c) “Forcible felony” does not include burglary of a vehicle, as defined in Section 76-6-204, unless the vehicle is occupied at the time unlawful entry is made or attempted.

(2) (a) An individual is justified in threatening or using force against another individual when and to the extent that the individual reasonably believes that force or a threat of force is necessary to defend the individual or another individual against the imminent use of unlawful force.

(b) An individual is justified in using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury only if the individual reasonably believes that force is necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury to the individual or another individual as a result of imminent use of unlawful force, or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

(3) (a) An individual is not justified in using force under the circumstances specified in Subsection (2) if the individual:

(i) initially provokes the use of force against another individual with the intent to use force as an excuse to inflict bodily harm upon the other individual;

(ii) is attempting to commit, committing, or fleeing after the commission or attempted commission of a felony , unless the use of force is a reasonable response to factors unrelated to the commission, attempted commission, or fleeing after the commission of that felony ; or

(iii) was the aggressor or was engaged in a combat by agreement, unless the individual withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other individual the intent to withdraw from the encounter and, notwithstanding, the other individual continues or threatens to continue the use of unlawful force.

(b) For purposes of Subsection (3)(a)(iii) the following do not, alone, constitute “combat by agreement”:

(i) voluntarily entering into or remaining in an ongoing relationship; or

(ii) entering or remaining in a place where one has a legal right to be.

(4) Except as provided in Subsection (3)(a)(iii):

(a) an individual does not have a duty to retreat from the force or threatened force described in Subsection (2) in a place where that individual has lawfully entered or remained; and

(b) the failure of an individual to retreat under the provisions of Subsection (4)(a) is not a relevant factor in determining whether the individual who used or threatened force acted reasonably.

(5) In determining imminence or reasonableness under Subsection (2), the trier of fact may consider:

(a) the nature of the danger;

(b) the immediacy of the danger;

(c) the probability that the unlawful force would result in death or serious bodily injury;

(d) the other individual’s prior violent acts or violent propensities;

(e) any patterns of abuse or violence in the parties’ relationship; and

(f) any other relevant factors.


Glad you made it here and hope it is not too late to salvage your future. As was earlier mentioned by @Nathan57 save yourself some grief and delete this thread. Seek legal counsel knowledgeable in UT law.

Once the LEOs got on the scene they started assessing the situation and although I believe everything you say, they likely took other information into account. Right or wrong they made their next move based on the totality of statements made by you, the other RR participant, and any witnesses.

This will all be further assessed by a prosecutor to see what charges he/she might file.

This type of situation is exactly why most of us who carry and frequent this community have USCCA for training and insurance. It is a known fact that if a firearm is used / possessed in a situation we may end up being arrested while the process plays out.

I can only wish you well and counsel that you secure an attorney to defend your rights.


Not trying to embarrass you. One of the things we discuss here, is to be the first one to call 911 first.

Welcome to the forum.


Generally, it is advised not to draw a firearm unless and until facing an imminent deadly threat, or an imminent threat of serious bodily harm or death. This threat should be something you can articulate (though you shouldn’t try until after speaking to your lawyer).

This is just…generally…I don’t know a thing about Utah law and am not a lawyer and am not giving legal adv ice. Just posting a generality

Hypothetically, in theory, if I was going slower than the person behind me, and they were really mad about that, I’d turn off the road so they can continue on their way and not be a danger behind me, and if they went to pass me, I’d slow down more so they got around me quickly and could speed off on their way.


and that’s what we call: de-escalation. :+1:

The most important is, to know to apply it in the right moment.


Don’t take any advice from us. Contact an attorney. You’re already in a legal predicament; your next steps and the words you use can make all the difference in how painful this headache will be and how long it will last.

My money says that a good attorney would probably advise against sharing this story on the internet and opening up for the world to comment on it.