I a sure there are lots of forums elsewhere on the internet… I guess you know this right? I’m not being sarcastic BTW… in my slim amount of knowledge about firearms, people who know about that stuff LOVE to talk about it to the Nth degree…
I’ve been told by a LEO who was teaching a gun safety class I attended (here in the Seattle area) that you can be charged with “menacing” if you cause unease in others by openly displaying a weapon. Despite the fact that we are an open carry state. Judgment and common sense come into play here; if you’re walking down a dark alley and trying to dissuade would-be muggers it’s okay, doing it in a park on a bright day with kids around wouldn’t be.
If you were walking around, eyeing people with your hand on your holster, if you have similar laws that could get you in trouble. As a reflex against an aggressive person, probably not.
Unless you’re using awkward language to refer to your CCW, you’re wrong. There are very, very few places that have any sort of registration system, especially for handguns. Montana is not one of them.
Since the answer to this is speculative, let’s move it to IMHO.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
Here in Crips territory, showing a weapon for effect is, at minimum, “brandishing” and people go to jail for it all the time.
Guy lifts his shirt to show the guy he’s talking to what’s up… and a cop sees it… Brandishing gets added on to everything else they’re going to hit him with.
Your situation obviously isn’t the same, but there’s no rocket science here. FWIW, my experience with street officers is that in situations where there is any question at all about the legalities of the situation, the street officer’s first choice is always going to be to bring you in and let other people decide if you go home or not. Those people might be police, prosecutors, or juries - depends on the exact situation how far that goes.
It depends on the other circumstances, I suppose. The OP specified
and
You don’t have to answer questions from an LEO ever, apart from name, address, and birthdate, but “keep your hand off your gun” is a reasonable request from a police officer who is making a legal stop IMHO.
Regards,
Shodan
I’m not sure I understand the purpose of the question. OP, are you concerned about being arrested. charged, etc. for posing an imminent threat, or are you concerned about being shot by a LEO or someone else and them using as their defense that you were an imminent threat?
Yes, this needs clarification. I would guess you either want to know whether your act would justify the use of force by the belligerent, or whether your act would constitute an assault.
At common law (and still in most jurisdictions), deadly force may be used by a person who has a fear of imminent death or serious bodily harm, which fear is objectively reasonable. We’ll leave aside duty-to-retreat issues. Whether the belligerent person’s fear exists is a subjective question. Whether the fear is reasonable is an “objective” standard (as the term is used in law, which is not really how we’d use the word in normal language). That is, we look at whether a hypothetical “reasonable person” would experience that fear under the circumstances.
To do that, we would need more information than just “I put my hand on my gun.” Did you say anything? How close were you? Was the gun secured in the holster? Was it dark? And so on.
I interpret the OP to be asking whether after he is shot by the other person that person can claim self-defense. Seems like a reasonable question.
As all the replies have indicated, to this question the answer, IMHO, is it depends. Guns certainly frighten me. If I see someone wearing a gun it makes me concerned. I have read enough to understand that most open carry people are actually safer than the average person to be around, OTOH most average people can’t kill me in a second from across the room. So, if I was on a jury deliberating about the above other person, it would be a serious issue to resolve. I would hope that there was considerable testimony for and against.
Of course it’s a threat. Even just the hand on the revolver is a threat. You’re using your ready access to a weapon to attempt to coerce the other person into changing their behavior. That’s a threat by any reasonable standard.
Now, is it a reasonable threat is the real question. That would depend entirely on the particulars of the situation.
The opposing attorney will love the fact that their unarmed client tried to talk to you and “then you reached for the gun.”
Use of force laws are often a matter of perception. If the opponent “perceived” that you were about to draw your weapon (and we can all agree that touching your weapon is the first step in drawing it), he could claim that you escalated the situation. It would be up to you to explain that your actions were prudent, given the threat the man presented, and make the argument that any reasonable person would do the same.
A quick look at case history (such as the Zimmerman case) demonstrates that juries are less concerned with who started the argument than who perceived themselves to be in danger.
Imminent threat? Hmmmmm? When I’m out in the street acting belligerent and harassing the good town folk, if one of them places their hand on a holstered weapon. I consider that an imminent threat and I shoot them.
IANA American, but if you were facing me and your hand went anywhere near your gun I would consider that an imminent lethal threat and I would have no hesitation in pulling my own gun and shooting you.