IMHO a verbal argument does not constitute brandishing a firearm. If the other women make an attempt to assault her it would be a different story.
6 Likes
If and only if a reasonable person would agree that the threat was of death or severe bodily harm and was imminent. Though some states are more lenient on their brandishing laws I think. I personally believe it is best not to draw unless I believe I am going to have to shoot, regardless of legalities.
Without seeing the body language and hearing what they were saying it is very hard to judge. But the carrier’s defense of “I saw it on the internet” does not increase my faith that she was making a sound decision. Having talked my way out of situations where very angry people were threatening to physically harm or shoot me, I suspect there were much better untried options than drawing a firearm in this situation. Most people are all bark and no bite unless you back them into a corner or make them look incredibly bad in front of their friends. I have no problem walking away from a confrontation with a shredded ego if it means no one has to get hurt.
I can imagine a situation where I believed things were about to go totally South and I might see my only option is to say something along the lines of “You are making me fear for my life. I have a firearm. Please don’t force me to defend myself.” I might even place my hand on my holstered firearm in that situation. But I wouldn’t draw it and wave it around a crowded room. Most likely in this case I just would have loudly said I don’t want any trouble and walked out without my food. A burger and fries just isn’t worth the hassle and legal fees. If they still continued to follow and threaten then the situation becomes much clearer for myself and the other witnesses.
3 Likes
@Jerzees
The attack was vicious and if he had not drawn his gun those teenagers may have beaten him worse. I am glad he did not shoot the 2 after they retreated and left the area. Thank God he was not seriously hurt.
4 Likes
We can only speculate about details in King of Prussia.
But if, as Police said, no one would be facing charges that means everything was done according to the Law.
2 Likes
Do Not “Turn Around”, back away, keep your eye’s on your target. If they are agressive and you turn your back you are toast…
3 Likes
Utah Code
| (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. |
Not death, Not harm “prevent another’s use of unlawful force”, like two people kicking the crap of you.
2 Likes
How is unlawful force defined in Utah? In AZ brandishing is only allowed in defense from unlawful physical force. Not against verbal assault.
3 Likes
| (2) | An actor commits aggravated assault if the actor: |
|---|---|
| (a) | |
| (i) | attempts, with unlawful force or violence, to do bodily injury to another; |
| (ii) | makes a threat, accompanied by a show of immediate force or violence, to do bodily injury to another; or |
| (iii) | commits an act, committed with unlawful force or violence, that causes bodily injury to another or creates a substantial risk of bodily injury to another; and |
Look at (ii) makes a threat accompanied by a show of immediate force…
and remember
| (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. |
2 Likes
Not a lawyer but from the language above it still appears that the brandisher’s defense would be highly dependent on whether most of the witnesses also believed she was being threatened with immediate physical violence. Based on the accounts shared by a couple of the witnesses I’m not so sure they would be testifying in her defense.
I’m sticking with my plan to only draw when all other options have failed and I’m convinced that severe bodily injury to myself or an innocent other is imminent. Especially over a petty confrontation like this one. Not having a legal requirement to expose your back to a potential attacker by retreating doesn’t always make standing your ground the best option in many if not most cases.
2 Likes
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.
(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.
3 Likes
WHY!!! would you trust somebody who claims to be pro-2A and pro-gun, yet still votes for those who would ignore the 2A and confiscate our firearms-- even if it means killing us???
Its like my father-in-law… “I’ve been voting Democrat for 65 years and I’m not changing now”… its like shooting yourself in the foot and others in the back. IF someone is a “conservative” democrat then take the party back from the Dumbocrats. BUT, get off the fence.
6 Likes
The two retards who didn’t let it go---- probably vote Dumbocrat.
4 Likes
That’s what the guy who served cold fries said before he was shot.
3 Likes
Well, yeah, THAT!!! 
3 Likes
OK, maybe I was being a little teeny bit Wordsmithy, Sorry.
2 Likes
So I definitely shouldn’t trust anyone who voted for Trump given that he did more to harm the 2A in his 4 years in office than Obama accomplished in his 8 years? Not to mention Trump’s additional threats as president to ban “assault rifles” and “high capacity” magazines through executive action that he fortunately didn’t have time to get around to?
I don’t remember any of that, can you link me up to something?
1 Like
Yeah, unfortunately @Shamrock is partially correct, at least on Trump’s rhetoric. Trump did keep claiming to be a 2A defender, but his words did get the best of him. I believe at one time he said something akin to “violate the (2A) rights and fix it later.” I can’t find the exact wording but I’ll keep looking and update when I have it.
The ATF redefining what is a machine gun was done during the Trump Administration (bump stocks).
However, I must disagree with @Shamrock on one big issue. Trump’s record of judiciary nominees was stellar. A lot of the 2A wins we’ve had in the past few years. Including the landmark NYSRPA (Bruen) decision are entirely because of his judicial nominees, and are already having far reaching impact to restore those rights that have been eroded.
I would have liked for him to be 100% even in his words, but I wish a lot of what Trump said was not what he said. However, his actions were indeed better than his words.
Here’s a good recap of what happened until 2020 https://www.heritage.org/firearms/commentary/second-amendment-grade-president-trump-so-far
4 Likes
Trumps anti 2A record? -
The biggy is Trump using executive action to get the ATF to ban bump stocks. A precedent that Biden is now using to ban triggers and 80% kits and will likely use to ban pistol braces and all sorts of other stuff if the assault weapon ban fails.
There is Trump having the justice department argue against the Supreme Court hearing a case that would have taken Suppressors of the NFA list:
A few more from one article:
Feb. 28, 2018: During that televised meeting with lawmakers Trump seemed open to supporting the assault weapons ban proposed by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.
“This is when the 10-year assault weapon ban was in — how incidents and deaths dropped. When it ended, you see it going up. So Senator Murphy —,” Feinstein said
"So we’ll take a look at it,” Trump interjected.
“— and 26 of us have co-sponsored a new bill. I would be most honored if you would take a look at it,” Feinstein added.
“I will. I will,” Trump said.
Feb, 28, 2018: In a meeting with lawmakers, Trump said, “I like taking the guns early, like in this crazy man’s case that just took place in Florida. He had a lot of firearms. They saw everything. To go to court would have taken a long time. So you could do exactly what you’re saying, but take the guns first, go through due process second.”
All I have time to dig up right now. Can’t find the link to him proposing assault and mag bans while president. It was a statement to a private group after the Vegas shooting saying he would act if Congress wouldn’t. Remember seeing several interviews and comments from the 1990s when he was best buddies with the Clintons were he expressed support for the assault weapons ban. His pro 2A Public statements mostly start around 2013 after he started thinking of running for President as a Republican. His views on Obama Care and Abortion rights from the 90s are also very interesting. He seems to be one of the few republicans upset with the recent abortion ruling. Though I’m sure he is mostly concerned with how it affects his re-election chances.
And most blatantly- Not a single pro 2A bill was even brought to the floor or passed during his first 2 years when Republicans had full control in the House and Senate. I would be very surprised if he doesn’t go full anti gun if he gets four more years and doesn’t have to worry about Republican votes again.
4 Likes
Agree. That is one of the few 2A promises he kept🙂 Along with his promise to ban bump stocks unfortunately😡
5 Likes