Comments on: Veto on Arizona Bills

By: deadcenter

deadcenter — Fri, 30 May 2008 05:14:43 +0000

Part of the reason for vetoing the good for life permit may be the simple fact that with its five year renewal requirement it’s a revenue generator in a state that is always looking for revenue.

By: Sebastian

Sebastian — Thu, 29 May 2008 00:24:46 +0000

Dustin…. See Dave Hardy’s update from Joe Olsen. Generally speaking, there’s a self-defense exception in common law, even if it’s not in statute.

By: Gregory Morris

Gregory Morris — Wed, 28 May 2008 23:57:28 +0000

I’ve been in an extremely similar situation. Granted, you could just say that I was open carrying (I was) but I intentionally showed him that I was armed only after he refused to back down given our verbal exchange.

I’d hate to see a law that would legalize “brandishing” over minor matters, but there are situations where moving from “concealed” to “open” is a good idea.

By: Dustin

Dustin — Wed, 28 May 2008 22:51:02 +0000

The applicable statute is in 13-1203 A2“Assault: Intentionally placing another person in reasonable apprehension of imminent physical injury” & 13-1204 A2 Aggravated Assault:”2. If the person uses a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument.” “B. Except pursuant to subsections C and D of this section, aggravated assault pursuant to subsection A, paragraph 1 or 2 or paragraph 9, subdivision (a) of this section is a class 3 felony except if the victim is under fifteen years of age in which case it is a class 2 felony punishable pursuant to section 13-604.01.”
So in summary, you can be charged & convicted of a Class 2 or 3 felony of Agravated assault in Arizona for simply “brandishing” a deadly weapon causing a thug to have “reasonable apprehension of imminent physical injury” - no exception is listed for brandishing a deadly weapon in self defense. I know of a case where an elderly gentleman simply moved his handgun from a concealed location in his vehicle onto his dashboard to scare away a car of thugs who were attempting to drive him off the road which did scare them away, and he was charged with agravated assault. I’m trying to find the specifics of that story, will post it when I find it.

By: Sebastian

Sebastian — Wed, 28 May 2008 21:12:20 +0000

What kind of situations do you mean?

By: BC

BC — Wed, 28 May 2008 21:05:49 +0000

Disagree completely with you, Sebastian. It doesn’t take a lot of imagination to think of a situation where the threat of lethal force would be reasonable even though the use of lethal force would not. In such situations, there shouldn’t be criminal liability for brandishing, any more than in a shots-fired self-defense situation there should be criminal liability for battery or homicide.

By: Robb Allen

Robb Allen — Wed, 28 May 2008 19:58:24 +0000

Ah, I appear to be the one with a misunderstanding. I guess it never really hurts to do a little digging, eh?

I sit corrected!

By: Sebastian

Sebastian — Wed, 28 May 2008 19:17:59 +0000

I’ve added an update.

By: Robb Allen

Robb Allen — Wed, 28 May 2008 19:16:51 +0000

Sebastian, I think I’m correct here as Greg and Dustin have chimed in.

Here’s the scenario - I’m walking to church to donate canned goods to orphans. Joe Thug jumps out from behind a bush and threatens to stab me. I drop the green beans and cranberry sauce, pull my Glock 7 (You know what that is? It’s a porcelain gun made in Germany. It doesn’t show up on your airport X-ray machines, and it costs more than you make here in a month!) and, upon seeing I’m armed, he turns and flees.

According to AZ law, I’m a criminal for brandishing.

That’s what the law was supposed to fix.

By: Dustin

Dustin — Wed, 28 May 2008 19:04:26 +0000

This law would not have forced anyone to change their tactics. It simply would have removed regulation that has unfairly punished law abiding citizens in Arizona in the past who were simply denfending themselves against thugs by “brandishing” their weapon (which sent the assailants running without the need to pull the trigger) & were then sent to jail on brandishing & assault with a deadly weapon charges. In Arizona if you display your concealed weapon in any way but don’t shoot your asailant you can be sent to jail on these charges. Citizens should be free to display their weapon in cases where an asailant is “using or attempting to use unlawful physical force” without being forced to pull the trigger, if the assailant halts the attack at the first sight of the weapon.

By: Gregory Morris

Gregory Morris — Wed, 28 May 2008 18:47:18 +0000

“Unless you’re justified in using deadly force, your gun should stay in its holster.” I agree, but it should be a matter of tactics, not law. You plan to always keep your firearm holstered unless you intend to use it. Unfortunately, there are situations where different tactics might be valid or advantageous. I see no reason to tie the hands of a citizen in using not only the best tools, but the best methods to defend himself.

If someone “brandishes” a weapon in an threatening fashion, there is already law to deal with that. If it is purely defensive, then the victim should have the right to decide _not_ to pull the trigger if he thinks merely showing the gun will end the situation.

Open carrying in AZ is already legal. But if you choose not to OC, but still wish to be able to display your weapon to force aggressors to stand down… you are outta luck.

By: Sebastian

Sebastian — Wed, 28 May 2008 18:37:20 +0000

Robb,

Not sure about the law in AZ, but I don’t think that’s the case here. Pennsylvania doesn’t have a law against brandishing specifically, but it’s considered simple assault if you threaten someone with your gun without justification.

By: BobG

BobG — Wed, 28 May 2008 18:29:46 +0000

“The renewal is just a hoop to jump through so everyone can feel better.”

Not to mention the fact that they can jack up the fee/tax whenever they want if they want more money, or want to discourage people from renewing.

By: Robb Allen

Robb Allen — Wed, 28 May 2008 18:27:45 +0000

I could be wrong on this, but it was my understanding that according to the law, if you draw your weapon and do not fire, you’ve committed a crime as it’s considered brandishing even if you were in a situation that warranted deadly force.

If drawing your gun diffuses the situation, you’re screwed. The way the law is worded now, it encourages people to shoot.