It’s a word used in Virginia law. Va Code § 18.2-282.1, for example, forbids any person from pointing, holding, or brandishing a machete or any weapon, with an exposed blade 12 inches or longer, with the intent of intimidating any person or group of persons and in a manner that reasonably demonstrates that intent.
Are you looking for a more specific definition?
See that cylinder at the top? That is made of metal, and can be filled with oil. That’s how you are supposed to use them.
It may only weigh about a pound empty, but you can add at least a pint of fuel to it, which is close to another pound.
There could be benefits to banning candles like that as well, as you could get a good swing with one of those. But, they are not on long poles, which gives you more reach and force, and they are not full of oil (and you could put stuff that is more volatile in it than lamp oil if you are being nefarious, just gasoline would make it much more dangerous).
You could really hurt someone with a tiki torch, both from the blunt force and the fire, in a was that you couldn’t do with candles, even if you allow those candles.
Is brandishing not related to firearm use as well?
The container is “transparent”. Metals are not transparent. There is a metal protector on the top that is like a small, inverted funnel and is about as dangerous as a tin of altoids.
Emphasis added.
I have these tiki torches myself. I don’t use them for protests, but have used them for parties. The fuel containers are plastic.
The picture does not match the description. The picture in your link is very clearly metal canisters at the end, and certainly not transparent.
I used to have a bunch of these types of torches (can usually pick them up cheaper than that too), used them around the backyard for little shindigs, everyone I’ve ever bought has had a metal top, as pictured in the link you provided.
So, we have established that there are tiki torches with metal canisters on them, and there are ones with plastic containers.
It is hard to tell for sure from the photos, but the torches that they were carrying looked like the metal topped containers to me.
I looked up Tiki torches before I posted, and the ones I found were nearly five pounds and nearly 5’ long. I don’t know how long the ones in question were, but the idea that they’re just as weaponizable as a candle is ludicrous, and that’s the last I’ll say on the topic. I’d be fine with limiting items carried during protests in the way San Diego does: if you want to carry a long wooden object, keep it to less than 1/4" thick and 2" wide, and if your Tiki torch complies, god bless.
I don’t think your reading of that article is accurate. Nothing there says that various weapons were banned. The article seems to focus on various weapons and makeshift items confiscated in the course of making arrests for other actions, like throwing bricks, disorderly, etc.
But why can a baseball bat not be a type of “arm”?
I don’t say that it can’t – just that no court has (so far as I am aware) found Second Amendment protections for baseball bats.
Connecticut State Supreme Court found 2nd amendment protection for police batons. The item was really an ASP by description, but the court ruling would also cover dirks.
Here, the CA court upheld conviction for possession of a bat, construed as a billy which is illegal in CA. They declined to address the 2nd amendment implications because the bat was possessed outside the home, and the defendant stupidly admitted it was a billy used for protection, and didn’t properly raise his claims at trial.
These are just background since they don’t address the question directly.
Yes, the general concept is the same. With firearms, however, the general rule is that lawful carry cannot itself constitute brandishing; case law requires holding the weapon and exhibiting it, exposing it, in “a shameless or aggressive manner.”
It’s possible to lawfully carry a firearm and still “brandish it,” but the evidence to sustain that conviction would have to show something specific threat. "How’d you like me to use this?’ for example, while gesturing with a carried gun, is brandishing even if not pointed at the person being addressed.
Yeah, like I said, that’s not the best article, and the current protest make past ones harder to google.
But, in the lead up to the protest, the police had banned weapons, and were searching people entering for any weapons. Much of this was on the broadcast news at the time too, as well as a twitter feed from the police department as they confiscated weapons.
I’ll try to see if I can find stuff on the lead up to the protest, or the twitter feed from the PD warning people not to bring weapons and that they would be confiscated, but not until tomorrow, when I have some more time, unless someone beats me to it.
It’s an interesting situation and personally I think it’s a pretty good example of “Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should”
Even if you live in a state where openly carrying a longarm in public is fine, you can bet those laws were written in an era when people might be carrying a Winchester rifle or a bolt-action hunting rifle through town - not one where people dress up in camo and body armour, don the full TactiCool rig, and show up at protests armed with an AR-15 (which is essentially an military-style assault rifle, albeit semi-automatic fire only).
I’d suggest showing up at a protest while dressed as an extra from a Special Forces movie is less about publicly airing one’s displeasure at something (eg a new law or policy) and more about antagonising and intimidating “the other side” into shutting the fuck up and going away.
In an ideal universe I don’t think people should be carrying firearms at a protest anyway, but at the same time it should be OK for people attending a politically charged protest in the US to carry a concealed handgun (as long as it’s legal etc where they are) purely for self-defence purposes.
Escalating a protest by having a bunch of humourless people with military gear (but who aren’t in the military) standing around being scary isn’t helping anyone, IMO.
This bit was news to me, and I forgot to comment on it when I first saw it; thanks for bringing it up!
I’m going to mix up the information in the cite; everything in brackets is explanatory text from later in that cite.
I wonder whether this law would pass constitutional muster if challenged. I also am not, in my very inexpert Googling, finding similar laws elsewhere.
Nonetheless, this seems a very reasonable way to handle the matter, given the second element.
I was trying figure how it applied to this picture:
Holstered or slung over the shoulder is clearly not brandishing. I don’t think the pictured guys would count as brandishing as described but I wouldn’t be surprised to hear someone feels differently.
In CA, I would consider that to clearly be brandishing. Brandishing is described in CA penal code 417:
A misdemeanor unless in the presence of a police officer, or some other circumstances that turns it into a felony.
I’ve been to protests where everyone was armed. Mostly protests against someone trying to pass gun control or something.
I wonder what would have happened if the Bernie Bros showed up armed too?
That’s a tough one because it seems very subjective. Is there any place that defines what is “rude, angry or threatening”? My sense is that the weapon would have to be pointed at someone or at least in the general direction of someone to count. Having the gun pointed at the ground seems like it would not qualify. But that’s just my sense. Is there any jurisprudence on the issue?
The news reports I heard were all live broadcast, so I can’t link to those.
But, here is Portland PD’s Twitter feed for that day.
That does sound like a ban to me.
Here is an article on Virginia brandishing laws.
http://firearmtrainingstore.com/about-us/blog/what-is-brandishing/
I think in practice, brandishing is whatever the cops say it is. I suspect that merely being aggressive with a visible gun in your possession, you could be arrested for brandishing.