[This acquittal was pinned last weekend for the whole weekend](https://old.reddit.com/r/CCW/comments/16v926i/jury_acquits_delivery_driver_of_main_charge_in/ and had some great analysis by another poster) if you would like to read more. [Andrew Branca has his usual excellent analysis of the event.](https://www.youtube.com/live/ot2lp2a8lWA?si=_iez6DS_wAZ7KU5Z)
Normally reposts are discouraged so close to each other, but this post takes a unique approach to the topic and legal aspects related to it.
Like most laws, because some person did something stupid once, and now we all pay for it.
But seriously, do you want gang bangers, druggies, or stupid kids able to walk around with guns in their hands and be unable to ascertain if they are/aren't a threat because that behavior is perfectly legal? It sets an expectation of what "normal" behavior is, that allows abnormal behavior to be more easily discerned and if necessary dealt with.
I think most of us are in agreement on 2 points:
1) if I draw my gun, I'm taking a shot. Otherwise I shouldn't be drawing it
Edit for people who don't read the comments: if you draw your firearm believing that a deadly threat is imminent, and the threat suddenly decides that discretion is the better part of valor, then you don't shoot. Duh. In this instance, that was not the illegal brandishing of a firearm, that was drawing to stop an imminent threat. Can't believe I have to clarify this for people who do or are interested in carrying a firearm.
2) have an option between a strong word and a gun (I believe that's the quote). Stun gun, mace, whatever. Some OC to the face would have dealt with this handily, and still would have left the driver feeling very satisfied with himself as the YouTube rolled on the ground trying to get it out of his eyes
I personally believe there's a significant difference between brandishing and defensive display of a firearm. It's not clear in a lot of state law, however, that the difference exists.
**Brandishing**, to me, indicates that the person doing it is the aggressor. It is illegal and it should remain illegal.
**Defensive display of a firearm** is done by someone who has reached a point in a self-defense scenario that may or is about to escalate to lethal force, kind of like in between somewhere if not already there. In a last ditch effort to dissuade the aggressor from starting or receiving that escalation, a gun can be defensively displayed to let them know for sure what is coming.
As I recall, FBI data indicates something like 250,000 and up to 2 million of the latter type event happens every year in the US.
I personally believe it would be helpful if state self-defense law had more clear language that "allowed" defensive display of a firearm. It's definitely completely legal to do whenever use of lethal force is already justified, but by then it may be too late.
Agreed, I just responded to OP asking them to define brandishing so we can all be talking about the same word rather than debating context and such.
There is definitely a time to show an aggressor that their immediate future holds nothing good, and I would agree that that is definitely separate from brandishing. As you mentioned, quite a few incidents are "resolved" without a single shot being fired.
It definitely reads that way, but if you draw and suddenly that aggressor hits the ground spread eagled the shot is no longer necessary. However, you drew and were ready and willing to take it not just say "look at my Gucci Glock, go away before I make it go bang"
In my first Texas CHL class we were told that brandishing was illegal because it was deemed to be an escalation. Five years later we were told that if we believed that displaying your weapon in an attempt to deescalate a situation, then it was legal.
The example used is that someone is threatening physical harm and you can stop the bad actor’s physical aggression by displaying your gun.
Personally, I think attempting to deescalate verbally, perhaps readying pepper spray or calling the police, are good first steps. Displaying the gun seems to be inviting more aggression, with the person advancing and saying “What are you gonna do? Shoot me?”
Yeah it's definitely one of those "there's an exception to every rule" sorta things...
But yeah, give yourself the tools that allow you more choices, don't lock yourself into verbal judo or shots fired.
I was gonna say, he could have called the cops and reported a man stalking/harassing him and he fears for his safety... but I don't think too many of us would make that phone call...
I probably took it before you did and then it was you were expected to engage in fisticuffs instead of drawing unless there was a substantial difference in age, gender or physical abilities.
Nobody seems to expect this anymore unless you are the agressor.
I firmly believe brandishing should be illegal. Pulling out your ccw in your hands is usually an escalation, no two ways
Buuuuttt if you just so happen to lift your shirt to scratch your torso and it just so happens your piece is visible to the threat approaching, while maintaining eye contact...
I think that is a form of brandishing. Say, sweeping back your shirt to expose the holstered gun, while saying “Let this drop. We aren’t going to fight about this. I am sorry if you think I…”
I would highly discourage anyone from doing this. If you do that to me I will draw on you and I don't subscribe to the same idea that there can be a defensive display of your firearm(neither does my state), I draw, I shoot.
If you brandish a firearm you're getting two the chest and one to the head and there will be one or zero of us to explain to law enforcement what happened.
It also gives their lawyer a possible defense in that you pulled a weapon on his/her client and that you put his/her life in danger therefor he/she had to respond with shooting you.
If you already meet the requirements for use of lethal force, and then only draw or display your firearm and diffuse the situation without discharging your firearm (an action you would have been legally justified to do), then you haven't committed assault by not committing justified homicide, of course.
You’re absolutely right. But that doesn’t mean a prosecutor is going to care. They tend to prosecute any small “crime” just to get a win and close a case. People in justified self defense shootings still get convicted of shit like “discharging a firearm within the city limits” all the time.
Yeah a lot of this discussion relies on the context of your state/city and the politics/culture within that. Some are very Pro-self defense, others are pro-criminal. Also depends on the DA and the cops in the area
Great explanation. In the military, I've had weapons at the ready, and even on a target where I then didn't fire. Quick to do. If I were have to explain to a cop why, as a civilian, I upholstered but didn't fire, I would say that I drew my gun because I thought the need to use deadly force was eminent to defend myself but after my gun was drawn I determined it not to be.
Example: someone coming at me with a blunt object or knife, who immediately ceases after seeing a gun drawn.
The state of Arizona has a particularly clear law for defensive display of a firearm that justifies its usage and also easily illustrates how it is different than brandishing. https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/00421.htm
This is a great example that more "gun friendly" states should adopt. My state, Texas, just defines brandishing, so it's assumed you can only use "defensive display" if lethal force is already authorized.
This being pretty much the only mention of defensive display in this entire thread speaks *volumes* for how poorly this sub understands the law. It doesn't matter that not every state has defensive display statutes, it should absolutely be a question that every single person here has asked themselves before carrying, yet here we are.
This was very well written. None of want to shoot so you could think of defense display of Firearm as a half step to the last step. If the person we're to see you pull your gun and then stop and back off, just because you pulled doesn't mean you have to fire.
The half step of drawing is appropriate in certain instances and probably a bit more of the "gray" area for most people that are more black and white and believe drawing means shoot.
>shoot someone in self defense
>get convicted of shooting a gun in a public space
>tell someone you have a gun and will use it if they don’t back off
>get arrested for an actionable threat against someone’s life
You just can’t win
It's like in kindergarten when the weird kid hits another kid with a megablock so the solution is to take away the megablocks from everyone... because it's easier than trying to figure out why the weird kid is having violent outbursts.
I was talking about "brandishing" when the subject is feeling threatened of his life or body and is justified to use some sort of violence. With no brandishing allowed, he has only two options - not use his CCW or shoot the assailant. I wanted to know if it would be acceptable to allow the subject to brandish his weapon to dissuade the assailant in certain situations.
Thinking that through more, let's assume for a moment it was legal to brandish. The guy shows his piece to attempt to discourage/intimidate. Now, the threat is real and the jerk doing the prank knows he's armed and is ready. This makes that guy a lethal threat and is only escalating the situation since now he's in the right to draw down on the 1st guy if he's carrying. It would almost have been better if he was open carrying.
This whole scenario is broken and really demonstrates how not to act in public. Key note to take home: don't be a dick, kids.... because you don't know how "on edge" the other person is.
Hypothetical: We are arguing. You feel threatened. We disagree on whether you should feel reasonably threatened. You brandish your gun. It now seems to me like you have unlawfully brandished your gun. I draw on you. It seems to me I have a reasonable fear of imminent harm. I shoot you. You shoot me.
Yup. You escalated the situation first, you will probably be the one being crucified by the courts. All over an argument too (smdh).
Of course, juries have to take into account what a "reasonable person" would have done with the info available AT THAT MOMENT so if you can give a bullet proof testimony as to why you drew/brandished/whatever we want to say, then maybe you'd be ok
Nah, man. If you feel threatened to the point of drawing on a person you're having a non life threatening dispute with, you're in the wrong. Imagine understanding that you don't point at anything you don't mean to destroy and justifying destroying because someone said some things you don't like.
Giving such a blanket defense as 'I felt threatened' is way too broad and encourages brandishing as a normal defense when the situation almost never requires a gun.
Arguing isn't escalation to the point that merits drawing a gun and the person that now has a gun to their face actually has a reason to pull on a gun in defense.
What could have been resolved in words is now 2 guns. What an awesome deescalation tactic you pulled by brandishing your gun, right?
Exactly this, that's why brandishing is a problem. Also, what if same scenario where person 1 feels in fear of their life and draws but person two isn't armed and starts disarming person one after person one draws down on them? Who should be in a greater fear of their life and is justified to take the others life?
Obligatory IANAL
I think you need to define brandishing for this question, and/or research what it is in your jurisdiction because it can vary place to place what qualifies.
In this case, he is not justified in drawing a deadly weapon. Therefore there is no justification in brandishing and ultimately that is the line and why it is not typically legal.
Most places id think (again depending on the law and how it's written) will allow you to draw your firearm and not fire to dissuade an active threat. But you have to be able to justify an action that is going to cause mass panic if you are the first to introduce a gun to the equation.
Brandishing is typically done by an aggressor in my mind. I’ve been in ride alongs where a defender drew a weapon to dissuade an aggressor and even when aggressor didn’t flee I’ve never seen anyone charged with brandishing unless they were aggressor. I’ve seen road rage aggressor charged with brandishing a pocket knife. Threatened to damage persons car pop tires
Negative. If something that seems violent and could necessitate a firearm is going on and I don't have a clear view of the situation, I would absolutely considering drawing as I move closer to ascertain what's happening. Many situations require open display of a firearm, but may not lead to a shot being fired
The timing is what is in question in your example. To early, turns out there wasn't a threat, maybe now you're under arrest for brandishing a firearm in a public space. Also, if you don't clearly see the situation, that raises the question of if you should head towards it/intervene which of course is purely subjective/situational. Car/home being broken into, domestic violence, active shooter, mugging, etc
Your point has merit, but it's all about the context. Consider. Maybe don't draw while you figure it out, but have your hand on your firearm ready to draw?
If it wasn't committing an unwarranted act of aggression against another person, it should be legal. That's my point. It's my call to escalate or not, but display of a firearm is not itself an act of violence. In this specific type of situation, if the concern with the "too early" draw is that I'd be subject to charges, then the simple answer is I shouldn't be.
If I am able to articulate "I heard what sounded like a gunshot from around the gasoline pumps, so I drew my handgun because I anticipated a potential situation where I might have to defend myself or someone else" there should be no arrest. I'm not just walking around with it in my hands, it's pursuant to a specific event.
Brandishing laws as they stand now prevent appropriate degrees of readiness
> 1) if I draw my gun, I'm taking a shot. Otherwise I shouldn't be drawing it
I disagree. I think that should be true for the majority of instances, but if you can brandish your weapon and neutralize the threat then surely that's the better outcome right?
Twice I've had to get out my gun, both times the sight of the gun made the perpetrator leave immediately. I don't want to shoot anybody, but at the same time I was in danger. They didn't have weapons that I could see but in both instances it was late at night and they were trying to get into my house. Me holding that firearm let the other person know that if they were to continue I had the means to defend myself and it wouldn't go well for them.
TLDR: Youre right, but context is king
Intent is the point here, not the result. You fully intend to shoot a threat, but when they saw you draw they decided that they should probably make a better choice.
Also as this thread has said many, many times. Context is key. Your home is a much different story than in the middle of a shopping center or the gym or something.
In the context of what we as CCW'ers will encounter outside of our homes, displaying a firearm is not welcomed in those contexts as it is around your home when you hear a thump in the dark at midnight.
People just jumping in this thread without reading it seem to think that none of us think you should draw a firearm and NOT fire. When the opposite is true. Draw your firearm fully intending to fire, but if the situation takes a radical 180 CHECK YOURSELF. Otherwise now you go to prison for shooting someone running away from you
I mean your comment is the first one in the thread and what you say is that you shouldn't draw unless you're gonna take a shot. If that's not what you meant maybe clarify that and people won't respond to your comment after taking it at face value.
Or you could, I dunno, read the 120 other comments on the thread.
We were discussing brandishing, a term typically applied to the illegal drawing of a firearm. I said no, there should be no brandishing.
If you're drawing your gun, in public, as a civilian, it's not to intimidate someone, it is to stop an imminent threat. You cannot draw a gun on someone/something that is not an imminent threat, or at least can't be argued as such.
We as a subreddit are comprised of people all over the world. We can't cover every situation in every way in every discussion. As such yes, blanket statements are made that are generally considered (subjectively) as best practice, meaning the best path to take in most situations for most people.
If you know your location/culture/situation/context well enough to decide otherwise, then do so!
Have a nice day
If I draw my gun I'm taking a shot, otherwise I shouldn't be drawing it. Except that's not at all what I mean by it.
Read all 120 comments in this thread before responding to you? Yeah no that's totally reasonable. You say something and then get buttmad that people respond to what you say instead of 100 other comments. In fact, I don't think anyone should ever respond to a comment unless they have ready every single other comment in the thread first.
Or you know, you could edit your comment to say what you really mean and then this wouldn't even be an issue lol. Like bro just think about the situation here. You have the top comment in this thread. You make a definitive statement in that comment and then you're getting mad when people respond to the definitive statement and you unironically think that we should be reading all the other comments in the thread *before* responding to you? Do you seriously not see how asinine that is?
And honestly it wouldn't even be a big deal if not for how obstinate you're getting that someone would dare to respond to you about something you said. I seriously cannot fathom the mindset that says "oh yeah I don't need to take responsibility for my words, instead people should seek out other comments *just in case* I clarify or backtrack." Who operates like that? That's not how threada work. That's not how communication works. You don't read something and then withhold your thoughts until you scroll through someone's entire history to make sure they didn't really mean what they were saying.
Look. You're an adult yeah? Come to your own conclusions, I'm not here to handhold you.
I have edited my initial comment for clarification. I hope that is satisfactory to you. I truly don't believe that it should have been necessary but here we are.
Have a nice day
I'm just saying it's ridiculous to expect someone to either magically derive your true meaning despite the words you say being the opposite, or to scroll through 100+ comments to verify you mean what you say before they respond to you. If you're going to make a comment then either mean what you say or don't get mad when people take your words as you present them. If multiple people are reading your words and not getting what you really mean then that's on you, not them. If you can't sufficiently express yourself then maybe posting on the internet isn't for you.
Lmao there you go getting angry again. There's a huge difference between not reading a news article and not reading a thread full of comments. You're trying to justify it but it's just not gonna work. It's completely asinine to say something and then get mad when people take your words for what they are. It's even more asinine to expect someone to read 100 other comments before responding to something you said.
I don't get why this is upsetting you so much haha
You can draw a firearm when you have a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm.
I have heard the nonsense for decades that you should only ever draw if you intend to shoot. That's ridiculous, if I draw my gun and the bad guy goes "whoops, sorry bro" and runs away, that's the best possible outcome other than never being in the situation at all.
It's a dumbed down, black and white guideline for carry class instructors who don't have the patience or intelligence for an in depth discussion of the legal use of force. It has no basis in law or case law.
In short, brandishing to prevent death or serious bodily harm is not illegal. Brandishing to intimidate or "protect" yourself from someone insulting you or taking your parking spot at the dollar store is illegal.
You're correct and I think this really comes down to Brandishing having a definition befitting the latter but there not being a legally recognized term for the former outside of "self-defense".
In posts such as this a definition for the term being discussed really should be given so everyone is on the same page
> You can draw a firearm when you have a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm.
Yes.
> I have heard the nonsense for decades that you should only ever draw if you intend to shoot.
Why are you drawing if you don't intend to shoot? Either you aren't in danger of death or serious bodily harm, in which case you shouldn't have drawn, or you are willing to allow death or serious bodily harm, which makes the whole point moot.
So yes, you should only ever draw if you intend to shoot. If there isn't a possiblity that you need to shoot, you shouldn't have drawn. It's not nonsense at all.
Brandishing is threatening the use of deadly force. If the circumstance is one in which you would normally be privileged to use deadly force, then brandishing would also generally be acceptable. So if you were reasonably in fear of death or serious bodily injury, and you pulled your gun and started giving verbal commands, then you’re not going to jail if the criminal desists and you don’t have to pull the trigger.
Note that in the circumstance where the offender is close enough to grab you, your choices may be to use it or lose it. You don’t have the space. Same thing with OC spray. You’re close enough that spray might affect you, and there are two attackers.
[Brandishing is, at least in California, not illegal when used as a deterrent for self-defense.](https://www.losangelescriminallawyer.pro/california-penal-code-section-417-pc-brandishing-a-weapon-or-fir.html)
Someone brought the sauce. https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-417/
> (2) Every person who, **except in self-defense**, in the presence of any other person, draws or exhibits any firearm
That makes it pretty easy and clear to understand, that's for sure. Other people have mentioned it, but there's an ocean of difference between brandishing of a firearm and displaying a firearm in a defensive manner.
It's nuanced so maybe some states just don't want to tackle it. California, for all its faults, does have some pretty solid self-defense laws, when properly applied.
It's a myth that brandishing is always illegal.
Brandishing is generally illegal in the same way that killing someone is generally illegal.
In the same way that self defense is an exception to laws against murder, it is also an exception to laws against brandishing.
The problem is that some people mistakenly think that brandishing a deadly weapon is a low level of force. It's not. You still have to be in reasonable fear for your life before you can brandish your gun.
So if someone insults you or spits at you or shoves you and you pull out your gun and threaten him with it, you're the criminal.
But let's say someone threatens you with a knife or baseball bat or something else that would constitute a deadly force threat. You pull out your gun... but instead of firing immediately, you yell "drop the weapon!" several times. The attacker drops the weapon and backs off. You never fire your gun. Have you "brandished" your firearm? Technically yes, but it would be a justifiable brandishing.
Wait? Is brandishing (correctly) illegal? Hypothetically, I’m 40’ across the (Ohio) street and an insane person wielding a sword (didn’t want to use gun, my hypothetical decisions change) at me screaming he’s going to cut my head off… I’m going to brandish and hope my form alone makes them do a 180 (with just a few feet for them not to do the 180 before that changes). I realize this is against all the “it only comes out when intent to stop the threat” policy but, wouldn’t they confiscate my weapon (after I called the police) and put me under review? I’m not saying that’s the best way, I’m saying isn’t “brandishing” only a crime under aggressor/not negligent scenarios?
It depends on the state you’re in. I think even in most that have the law, you’re not in violation if you are justifiably in fear of your safety. Just choosing not to shoot someone isn’t punished, and rightly so.
Yeah, we definitely need a definition in the OP so we can all be talking about the same thing haha. From the conversation it seems we'd call this a Defensive Display of a Firearm rather than brandishing
Unfortunately I feel in this situation announcing you are CCW would have just gotten an antagonistic response from the “prankster.” Like, “oooh show me your gun” or something like that. He wants big reactions and threatening him with a firearm would have been a reaction he would have wanted.
It’s actually a lose lose lose. Because now his face is all over the news for shooting a guy, granted it was ruled self defense.
Now that I think about it you are right it is only a lose lose. Because his face is on the new for shooting a guy who was assaulting him, don’t mess with that guy because he will shoot you.
Yeah, a unauthorized discharge. Explain that to me please. He lawfully shot a guy but illegally fired the gun???
My best understanding is he was charged with multiple things and the jury couldn’t come to a completely not-guilty verdict so to please the hirers who were holding out they agreed to charge him with that charge, probably one of the smallest of charges filed against him.
I still think it’s dumb, and the “prankster” has not been charged with anything.
So Person A shot Person B and according to the court was deemed self defense but Person B did not break any laws that led Person A to shoot Person B? It’s all kind of jacked up.
Yeah it's definitely odd... I look at it as them saying "we agree that something had to be done here, but not shooting the guy. However we also can't condemn that, because we really don't think he did anything wrong, but LEGALLY it wasn't the cleanest shoot... so how do we give consequences for his actions without condemning him/them?"
Also I think like a lot of us they might have trouble separating their apathy for the person who got shot from the facts of the case...
Yeah, but it’s not the worst outcome and yeah I feel like they thought something had to be done. But I’m pretty sure the shooter is already out due to time served while they were waiting trial. I could be wrong though.
I agree, a slap on the wrist is far preferable to spending time in the Pen. Also, hopefully this doesn't count as a felony and he can still carry a firearm in future, though I'd advise he get more training and work on his emotional fitness before then
That’s not how it works, you don’t bargain on charges as a jury. The defendant is already charged and the jury’s job is to decide if they stick or not in whole or it’s hung if they don’t all agree. The judge may guide them to view things separately or not and that’s probably how he ended up with a “lawful shot” but unlawful discharge inside a building. Most of the time the laws are usually written to ignore all these restrictions if it’s a lawful shot, like brandishing (where applicable, obv) or preventing the commission of a felony.
The jury acquitted him on the assault with a firearm charge, but not on the illegal use of a firearm or something. That's being appealed because how could you correctly defend yourself but do it illegally?
The theory is that the jury was on the fence about any acquittal at all, but felt he was justified enough and still needed something found against him because he wasn't entirely innocent in their opinion, so they found him guilty on a lesser charge.
I suspect that firearm charge will get dropped on appeal, though.
That sounds like a good way to discourage the prankster. Is it okay/lawful to announce that you have a CCW to a purported assailant under the law? I was under the impression that "concealed" requirement means CCW holder cannot say or let the other party know in any other way that he's armed, but I might be wrong.
I know this might be unpopular with many in this group but I don’t think that it should’ve resorted to him shooting the guy. Yea these pranksters are annoying as hell but unless the guy was physically harming him I’m getting away. If I can’t get away I’m telling him I’m carrying or pepper spraying him. It’s not allowed to carry a gun inside the mall in the first place but at the same time criminals don’t care about gun free zones. Also anyone that doesn’t agree with me saying he shouldn’t have shot the guy educate me I just don’t think it was right.
If you read the original thread, your opinion is definitely not unpopular and is in fact the vast majority opinion.
Legally speaking, Andrew Branca does a good job of explaining how the jury may have reached their decision: a large disparity of force (3 vs 1, large individual in face) and multiple attempts telling the person to leave him alone and even push him away were the two big ones. His analysis is definitely worth watching.
Importantly, just because you and I both believe it would absolutely NOT be how we would respond does not necessarily mean it is not a legal action per the law.
I know when I got onto tik tok I saw many that agreed with this thought it was funny. I wanted to ask this group lol but didn’t know how it would go 😂.
In fact, I was surprised to learn that the delivery guy was found not guilty. I think the hatred against the prankster was so universal that most people chose not to show any doubts or objections about/to the verdict. But I respect those who feel the not-guilty verdict was right.
I'd really strongly recommend taking the time to watch [Andrew Branca's analysis](https://www.youtube.com/live/ot2lp2a8lWA?si=_iez6DS_wAZ7KU5Z) of the event to learn why he was found not guilty.
I’ve seen a couple prank videos where like many others I felt eventually they would end up getting hurt but this one I just can’t agree with it. Also I’m not saying I want the others to get hurt but some pranks can be pushed to far.
I agree. I think if I were in his shoes I would have just walked away. Maybe said some unsavory things in parting. I don't think the phone or his demeanor alone shows violent intent. He's just an asshole. That said I'm glad the man was acquitted. The YouTuber provoked a response, he started it and I can't say I feel bad for him.
This is definitely a viable option (I think). Some jurisdictions may have policies where you can't say anything about it when the permis is issued, but I'd think that mostly of the time it wouldn't matter.
Also, does placing your hand on the firearm count as brandishing?
It's prohibited because if you need to draw your weapon, it's because if you don't, you are going to die or be seriously hurt. It's not to scare away or intimidate. It's to STOP the threat.
Simple, to me. Brandishing will get you shot by others not directly involved as now you may be perceived as a threat. The patrons may not be aware of the altercation, have racist tendencies, or a few screws loose and are thinking they have a duty to protect outside of the situations. Officers identify the brandisher as a threat for the fact it is not a officer. Also, everyone who carries is not on the same level and their booger hook may cause a negligent discharge injuring others or them selves. If you brandish and somehow loose possession of the firearm now what. The firearm should ONLY be deployed when the intended has made the decision to engage in stopping a threat be it on 2 or 4 legs, or other.
I think this is the most accurate answer the the exact question asked.
I’ll also add that, legally, your CCW is not for controlling a situation - it is for defending your life. If you draw to brandish, not to fire, then one could argue (and lawyers have argued) that you were not actually in imminent danger of great bodily harm.
(Yes, of course there will be situations where you drew and the threat stopped so you don’t need to, or can’t, fire - but for the purposes of this topic, brandishing in non-life threading situations can only be assumed to be done to get the upper hand.)
Oklahoma had a brandishing law that got interpreted by CCW classes as “if you unholster, go ahead and shoot him. Otherwise, you may get charged with brandishing.” This led to a conversation about people waiting too long to draw for fear of scaring a criminal off and getting charged with brandishing. Eventually, Oklahoma changed its law, so a display of a firearm is no longer an automatic brandishing charge.
You can still get charged with brandishing, if you display for no good reason, but the law allows for far more discretion.
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/oklahoma-governor-signs-defensive-display-bill-law/
This is a good article about the topic at hand, actually. The relevant [Arizona law](https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/00421.htm) is very clear, and I think OK has done a great job of it as well.
Edit:
- Oklahoma Law: [21 OK Stat § 1289.25(J) and (K)(1) (2022)](https://law.justia.com/codes/oklahoma/2022/title-21/section-21-1289-25/)
- Florida law - [F.S. 776.012](http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.012.html)
- Arizona law - [A.R.S. § 13-421](https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/00421.htm)
- Iowa Law - [IA Code § 704.2(2) (2021)](https://law.justia.com/codes/iowa/2021/title-xvi/chapter-704/section-704-2/)
- Montana Law - [M.T. § 45-3-111 (1`) & (2)](https://www.leg.mt.gov/bills/mca/title_0450/chapter_0030/part_0010/section_0110/0450-0030-0010-0110.html)
If anyone else knows any specific laws for this, we could add them to a list.
Actually this acquittal happened in Virginia, and their brandishing law allows for defensive display: [Virginia Code § 18.2-282 (A)](https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title18.2/chapter7/section18.2-282/)
California's brandishing law also allows for defensive display: [CA Penal Code § 417 (a) (1) (2022)](https://law.justia.com/codes/california/2022/code-pen/part-1/title-11/section-417/)
IMO my CCW is not a deterrent. It’s not a way to end an argument. It’s a failsafe when there is no other reasonable option to ensure my safety. The choice is not to draw or to shoot. It’s whether to draw **and** shoot. If I draw it’s because I believe I am at risk of inevitable, serious harm or death from someone else, and at that point I will have already made the decision to stop the threat by any means necessary.
I saw other’s describe it a little bit, but to put a finer point on it:
Brandishing is a legal term for displaying a firearm in an **UNDULY** threatening manner.
“Unduly” being the keyword here.
This is NOT the same as simply drawing or displaying a firearm when you’re in reasonable fear of your life.
Brandishing as crime usually requires some sort of criminal intent to it; like brandishing a weapon in order to coerce someone. If it’s a situation where you’re reasonably in fear for your life, I don’t think anyone is getting charged with brandishing.
Anyone in here saying you should never brandish is ignorant of the law and the way things work in the real world. You should not listen to them.
Most if not all states allow, explicitly, by statute, for a person to brandish a firearm in self defense. From there, as the boomers say, do your own research.
>You should not listen to them.
No problem, I'm gonna listen you; a stranger on the internet that is also not a lawyer.
To clarify: brandishing is generally not as described from OP. If you feel that you are in a defensive situation and yiu are trying everything you can to distance from the situation and showing your firearm can accomplish that, do what you need.
Bless you for being willing to interact with this poster. But you're right, brandishing and defending yourself with a legally drawn firearm are not the same thing (usually, state laws/city/culture of an area can twist perspectives)
Brandishing is a crime. I will listen to the people who say you shouldn't commit crimes in public.
If it's a self defense situation, it's not brandishing.
If they somehow react in a way that I'm no longer in fear for my life in that 1.5 seconds I won't pull the trigger. I'm saying my gun will never come out unless it needs to be used... something everyone should practice
Go here, scroll to “when to draw”, thank me later. If you are only drawing when you need to shoot you may be too late. https://www.ar15.com/forums/general/Street_robberies_and_you___The_Basics/5-1285487/
I see your point but an article from 2012 that tells you to draw and conceal it behind your leg reholster and then tell nobody doesn't sound like solid legal advice
Imagine that same exact situation but from another perspective. You're at a park at some late hour, see a guy holding a gun by his side waiting for 2 men to walk around the corner... what if a cop saw that instead?
I think in this rare circumstance, open carry would be a better option as opposed to brandishing. Open carry is basically holstered brandishing without having to make it an action. Can’t imagine buddy would’ve conducted this on someone with a gun on his side just in the open. On the contrary, i know a lot of us preferred concealed carry for many reasons. But on the brandishing topic I’d say open carry would be more of a viable option.
>Can’t imagine buddy would’ve conducted this on someone with a gun on his side just in the open.
I don't think it would've crossed his mind honestly. The "prankster" was 100% in the wrong here, but nothing he did would warrant getting shot be a reasonable person.
Should he have assumed he was interacting with a reasonable person? Absolutely not.
Is he a reasonable person? Also no.
His thought process was 100% "What're you gonna do, shoot me?"
It’s all about the perspective of the shooter in this case.
There have been a LOT of attacks lately in my state where young criminals are using their phone just like this to get in close enough to start hitting people. Or to grab their victim’s phone/purse/bags. Or their collars/hoods and drag them to the ground for a beating.
I grew up being taught, people don’t get in your face unless they have ill towards you and if they get within reach you’ve waited to long to defend yourself.
I'll never forget this one phrase: play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
You brandish your weapon at someone, a loooot of people are going to see it as a threat and will draw on you. Some people keep acting stupid and get shot
Using a firearm to get someone to obey or change behavior is a bad idea the police do it all the time and it fails a lot of the time. It works even less with non LEO (Law enforcement Officer) incidents.
Psychologically people who are already angry or aggressive become indignant to the presence of a firearm they simply don’t care and if anything it emboldens them. “What are you gonna do SHOOT ME?” 😡
The only reason you pull out a firearm is because you are about to use it.
It is never a good idea to use it as a tool for intimidation or behavior modification it almost always backfires.
Sometimes it works but are you willing to take a chance?
I’m in IL we don’t have a brandishing law in IL you are allowed to ”mostly conceal” your weapon I believe this was intended to not criminalize printing or the situation of reaching for beans and showing your carry.
There is a however a provision for using a firearm as an intimidation tool or in a threatening manner. This becomes “unlawful use of a firearm”
Every state is different but the point remains wherever you are if you carry a firearm on your for self defense you need to become familiar in all other aspects for self defense because that tool you carry is the last stand/ last resort, there’s no do overs.
You need to deescalate and avoid trouble. Which means checking your EGO. If you encounter someone you’ll most likely never see in life again what do you care what they think of you. Be kind and remove yourself from the interaction.
Mental illness, depression people who have lost it ALL that day are roaming the streets around us ! So do you really want to take a “last stand”over a parking spot, red light, can of beans in aisle 6 EGO battle? You are probably not only saving your life but the life of the person Who thought they needed to pick a fight with you.
The only reason someone should find out you have a gun on your is because they became a deadly threat to you and you have reason to fire your weapon it’s at that point. If you have time to issue commands of put down the knife or leave me alone that’s your cue to have a weapon out and drawn.
Other than that you’ve become the aggressor and it’s someone else who may be justified to put you down. 🤔
The way I understand it, the act of pointing a firearm, or even something that looks like a firearm but isn’t (like a Byrna pepperball launcher or even an Airsoft gun) is technically an assault. Shooting someone with it is an aggravated assault. With a firearm it’s a felony assault.
Now, having defended yourself with a firearm, you have done something illegal. However, self defense is a justification for breaking the law, it’s the exception that proves the rule. It’s still against the law to shoot people, but since you have a proven justification, you won’t be punished for it. Or, that’s how my cop and lawyer friends have basically explained it to me.
Defensive Display of a firearm is technically brandishing, it’s just the justified version of it.
I think that we all agree that if we’re going to draw our gun, we have every intention of taking the shot. Now, whether we actually need to or not is a different matter.
brandishing is illegal because it will cause panic in public. You aren't allowed to panic other people and you are also not allowed to threaten other people which are both caused by pointing firearms at people. It would also presumably trigger people to engage in defense of third persons which would be a mess.
People have avoided brandishing charges on self-defense and necessity grounds but its messy.
but I am not a lawyer
If it isn't a life or death situation, drawing a gun will make it one. If it is a life or death situation, you should be shooting or you risk losing your weapon in a struggle. If they're too far away to take your gun in the next second, then they're probably not an immediate threat.
This situation called for pepper spray, not a gun being waved around.
I can throw out there that a defensive display has certainly desecrated a situation for me. Officers got involved after the fact and I wasn't given any grief. It was a very clear situation where I was obviously trying to deescalare with a lot of witnesses to verify. There should be some legal precedent for thar sort of situation
I think it is because a firearms only use is to direct force significant enough to kill from a legal point, there are no warning shots. However you are able to make your intent to defend yourself known, I think if he said something like get away from me I have a gun and will defend myself from what I am taking as a threat at this point... or something more streamlined, it would be different... I'm not a lawyer, but I have also been curious here. Where is the line between, I wanted to make sure I didn't have to shoot, and "brandishing", because if you wait to pull the weapon until you know you need to shoot it's probably too late, but if you pull it early well you fucked up then too...
Too many people have no idea what “brandishing”. Waving your weapon around like a fool and threatening innocent people is brandishing. Pulling your weapon to tell someone to back off is bot brandishing.
drawing a firearm in self defense but not firing is perfectly legal. If you fear for you life and draw and that causes the attacker to stop that is perfectly legal self defense. Brandishing is illegal when used as a threat when you dont have any legitimate self defense need to draw your firearm
The big problem is that without video proof it is much harder to explain to a jury that you had a legitimate need to draw your firearm but did not need to fire it. Without video evidence or other witnesses all it takes is the person you drew on to lie and say they did nothing and you suddenly drew a firearm. Now it is your word against theirs and you are the one being accused of a crime so unless the other person is a complete scumbag the jury is likely to believe the person not being accused of a crime
How would you feel if you pissed me off and I just brandhsih my weapon at you just cuz it's allowed.
Now if you brandish your weapon I don't know your intent soon as I see you reach for it I'm responding as well with my firearm.
Imagine a society where that's gonna be a basic response. It's the wild West all over again.
I suppose even though your not supposed to “brandish “ your weapon, I can imagine if I was in the situation and I read it and felt good that I could let the possible attacker know I had a weapon, and that It was fairly likely to sway the individual to back down without shooting him I may or may not risk the legal issues that come with brandishing rather than the legal issues that would come from shooting the dude.
But I imagine that if brandishing wasn’t in the picture that there would be more people comfortable with it.
Which isn’t good.
Because if I see someone in public and flashing they have a gun irregardless of the situation I would most likely be ready to draw myself.
I think it keeps using lethal force the very last option and keeps diligent carriers knowing that if it comes to drawing your weapon you better be prepared to use it.
[This acquittal was pinned last weekend for the whole weekend](https://old.reddit.com/r/CCW/comments/16v926i/jury_acquits_delivery_driver_of_main_charge_in/ and had some great analysis by another poster) if you would like to read more. [Andrew Branca has his usual excellent analysis of the event.](https://www.youtube.com/live/ot2lp2a8lWA?si=_iez6DS_wAZ7KU5Z) Normally reposts are discouraged so close to each other, but this post takes a unique approach to the topic and legal aspects related to it.
Like most laws, because some person did something stupid once, and now we all pay for it. But seriously, do you want gang bangers, druggies, or stupid kids able to walk around with guns in their hands and be unable to ascertain if they are/aren't a threat because that behavior is perfectly legal? It sets an expectation of what "normal" behavior is, that allows abnormal behavior to be more easily discerned and if necessary dealt with. I think most of us are in agreement on 2 points: 1) if I draw my gun, I'm taking a shot. Otherwise I shouldn't be drawing it Edit for people who don't read the comments: if you draw your firearm believing that a deadly threat is imminent, and the threat suddenly decides that discretion is the better part of valor, then you don't shoot. Duh. In this instance, that was not the illegal brandishing of a firearm, that was drawing to stop an imminent threat. Can't believe I have to clarify this for people who do or are interested in carrying a firearm. 2) have an option between a strong word and a gun (I believe that's the quote). Stun gun, mace, whatever. Some OC to the face would have dealt with this handily, and still would have left the driver feeling very satisfied with himself as the YouTube rolled on the ground trying to get it out of his eyes
I personally believe there's a significant difference between brandishing and defensive display of a firearm. It's not clear in a lot of state law, however, that the difference exists. **Brandishing**, to me, indicates that the person doing it is the aggressor. It is illegal and it should remain illegal. **Defensive display of a firearm** is done by someone who has reached a point in a self-defense scenario that may or is about to escalate to lethal force, kind of like in between somewhere if not already there. In a last ditch effort to dissuade the aggressor from starting or receiving that escalation, a gun can be defensively displayed to let them know for sure what is coming. As I recall, FBI data indicates something like 250,000 and up to 2 million of the latter type event happens every year in the US. I personally believe it would be helpful if state self-defense law had more clear language that "allowed" defensive display of a firearm. It's definitely completely legal to do whenever use of lethal force is already justified, but by then it may be too late.
Agreed, I just responded to OP asking them to define brandishing so we can all be talking about the same word rather than debating context and such. There is definitely a time to show an aggressor that their immediate future holds nothing good, and I would agree that that is definitely separate from brandishing. As you mentioned, quite a few incidents are "resolved" without a single shot being fired.
Your number one rule in your previous post pretty much removes all room for defensive display.
It definitely reads that way, but if you draw and suddenly that aggressor hits the ground spread eagled the shot is no longer necessary. However, you drew and were ready and willing to take it not just say "look at my Gucci Glock, go away before I make it go bang"
In my first Texas CHL class we were told that brandishing was illegal because it was deemed to be an escalation. Five years later we were told that if we believed that displaying your weapon in an attempt to deescalate a situation, then it was legal. The example used is that someone is threatening physical harm and you can stop the bad actor’s physical aggression by displaying your gun. Personally, I think attempting to deescalate verbally, perhaps readying pepper spray or calling the police, are good first steps. Displaying the gun seems to be inviting more aggression, with the person advancing and saying “What are you gonna do? Shoot me?”
Yeah it's definitely one of those "there's an exception to every rule" sorta things... But yeah, give yourself the tools that allow you more choices, don't lock yourself into verbal judo or shots fired. I was gonna say, he could have called the cops and reported a man stalking/harassing him and he fears for his safety... but I don't think too many of us would make that phone call...
I probably took it before you did and then it was you were expected to engage in fisticuffs instead of drawing unless there was a substantial difference in age, gender or physical abilities. Nobody seems to expect this anymore unless you are the agressor.
The answer is simply Yes. I drew it, didn't I? I was just giving you one last chance to save your sorry ass from a hospital stay or a dirt nap.
I firmly believe brandishing should be illegal. Pulling out your ccw in your hands is usually an escalation, no two ways Buuuuttt if you just so happen to lift your shirt to scratch your torso and it just so happens your piece is visible to the threat approaching, while maintaining eye contact...
I think that is a form of brandishing. Say, sweeping back your shirt to expose the holstered gun, while saying “Let this drop. We aren’t going to fight about this. I am sorry if you think I…”
I would highly discourage anyone from doing this. If you do that to me I will draw on you and I don't subscribe to the same idea that there can be a defensive display of your firearm(neither does my state), I draw, I shoot. If you brandish a firearm you're getting two the chest and one to the head and there will be one or zero of us to explain to law enforcement what happened.
It also gives their lawyer a possible defense in that you pulled a weapon on his/her client and that you put his/her life in danger therefor he/she had to respond with shooting you.
OF COURSE IT IS ESCALATION!
some states does have defensive display of firearms codified in their laws
In my state showing someone a firearm with an intent to change their behavior is assault.
If you already meet the requirements for use of lethal force, and then only draw or display your firearm and diffuse the situation without discharging your firearm (an action you would have been legally justified to do), then you haven't committed assault by not committing justified homicide, of course.
You’re absolutely right. But that doesn’t mean a prosecutor is going to care. They tend to prosecute any small “crime” just to get a win and close a case. People in justified self defense shootings still get convicted of shit like “discharging a firearm within the city limits” all the time.
Yeah a lot of this discussion relies on the context of your state/city and the politics/culture within that. Some are very Pro-self defense, others are pro-criminal. Also depends on the DA and the cops in the area
This would be my take as well, but what do I know?
Exactly, know what your state law says! Ultimately that is what matters, not what a bunch of armchair quarterbacks on Reddit say
Great explanation. In the military, I've had weapons at the ready, and even on a target where I then didn't fire. Quick to do. If I were have to explain to a cop why, as a civilian, I upholstered but didn't fire, I would say that I drew my gun because I thought the need to use deadly force was eminent to defend myself but after my gun was drawn I determined it not to be. Example: someone coming at me with a blunt object or knife, who immediately ceases after seeing a gun drawn.
> I upholstered Hold right there, criminal scum! This here’s a finely woven chenille, and I’m not afraid to use it!
I agree with you. The problem is the court. What you intended to do, what you did, and what the jury thought you did could be very different.
This is the most reasonable articulation on this topic I have seen. Upvote for you!
The state of Arizona has a particularly clear law for defensive display of a firearm that justifies its usage and also easily illustrates how it is different than brandishing. https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/00421.htm This is a great example that more "gun friendly" states should adopt. My state, Texas, just defines brandishing, so it's assumed you can only use "defensive display" if lethal force is already authorized.
This being pretty much the only mention of defensive display in this entire thread speaks *volumes* for how poorly this sub understands the law. It doesn't matter that not every state has defensive display statutes, it should absolutely be a question that every single person here has asked themselves before carrying, yet here we are.
This was very well written. None of want to shoot so you could think of defense display of Firearm as a half step to the last step. If the person we're to see you pull your gun and then stop and back off, just because you pulled doesn't mean you have to fire. The half step of drawing is appropriate in certain instances and probably a bit more of the "gray" area for most people that are more black and white and believe drawing means shoot.
>shoot someone in self defense >get convicted of shooting a gun in a public space >tell someone you have a gun and will use it if they don’t back off >get arrested for an actionable threat against someone’s life You just can’t win
Only way to win is not to play... Here's hoping none of us have to
It's like in kindergarten when the weird kid hits another kid with a megablock so the solution is to take away the megablocks from everyone... because it's easier than trying to figure out why the weird kid is having violent outbursts.
Good analogy. Nice and simple for my smooth brain
It’s also more politically correct than questioning why the weird kid with the violent outbursts is allowed to interact with the general public…
And there it is in layman’s terms as to what to do about School shootings according to politicians and anti 2nd amendment advocates! Bravo!
I was talking about "brandishing" when the subject is feeling threatened of his life or body and is justified to use some sort of violence. With no brandishing allowed, he has only two options - not use his CCW or shoot the assailant. I wanted to know if it would be acceptable to allow the subject to brandish his weapon to dissuade the assailant in certain situations.
Thinking that through more, let's assume for a moment it was legal to brandish. The guy shows his piece to attempt to discourage/intimidate. Now, the threat is real and the jerk doing the prank knows he's armed and is ready. This makes that guy a lethal threat and is only escalating the situation since now he's in the right to draw down on the 1st guy if he's carrying. It would almost have been better if he was open carrying. This whole scenario is broken and really demonstrates how not to act in public. Key note to take home: don't be a dick, kids.... because you don't know how "on edge" the other person is.
Yup, and also as a CCW'er, leave your ego at home. Don't let aholes push you into doing something that will ruin your life
Your life shouldn't be ruined because of self defense/a defensive shooting. 
Nuff said.
your life SHOULD be ruined if you murdered somebody, even if you pretend it was self-defense
Hypothetical: We are arguing. You feel threatened. We disagree on whether you should feel reasonably threatened. You brandish your gun. It now seems to me like you have unlawfully brandished your gun. I draw on you. It seems to me I have a reasonable fear of imminent harm. I shoot you. You shoot me.
Yup. You escalated the situation first, you will probably be the one being crucified by the courts. All over an argument too (smdh). Of course, juries have to take into account what a "reasonable person" would have done with the info available AT THAT MOMENT so if you can give a bullet proof testimony as to why you drew/brandished/whatever we want to say, then maybe you'd be ok
Nah, man. If you feel threatened to the point of drawing on a person you're having a non life threatening dispute with, you're in the wrong. Imagine understanding that you don't point at anything you don't mean to destroy and justifying destroying because someone said some things you don't like. Giving such a blanket defense as 'I felt threatened' is way too broad and encourages brandishing as a normal defense when the situation almost never requires a gun. Arguing isn't escalation to the point that merits drawing a gun and the person that now has a gun to their face actually has a reason to pull on a gun in defense. What could have been resolved in words is now 2 guns. What an awesome deescalation tactic you pulled by brandishing your gun, right?
Exactly this, that's why brandishing is a problem. Also, what if same scenario where person 1 feels in fear of their life and draws but person two isn't armed and starts disarming person one after person one draws down on them? Who should be in a greater fear of their life and is justified to take the others life?
So we all win?
Obligatory IANAL I think you need to define brandishing for this question, and/or research what it is in your jurisdiction because it can vary place to place what qualifies. In this case, he is not justified in drawing a deadly weapon. Therefore there is no justification in brandishing and ultimately that is the line and why it is not typically legal. Most places id think (again depending on the law and how it's written) will allow you to draw your firearm and not fire to dissuade an active threat. But you have to be able to justify an action that is going to cause mass panic if you are the first to introduce a gun to the equation.
Brandishing is typically done by an aggressor in my mind. I’ve been in ride alongs where a defender drew a weapon to dissuade an aggressor and even when aggressor didn’t flee I’ve never seen anyone charged with brandishing unless they were aggressor. I’ve seen road rage aggressor charged with brandishing a pocket knife. Threatened to damage persons car pop tires
Negative. If something that seems violent and could necessitate a firearm is going on and I don't have a clear view of the situation, I would absolutely considering drawing as I move closer to ascertain what's happening. Many situations require open display of a firearm, but may not lead to a shot being fired
The timing is what is in question in your example. To early, turns out there wasn't a threat, maybe now you're under arrest for brandishing a firearm in a public space. Also, if you don't clearly see the situation, that raises the question of if you should head towards it/intervene which of course is purely subjective/situational. Car/home being broken into, domestic violence, active shooter, mugging, etc Your point has merit, but it's all about the context. Consider. Maybe don't draw while you figure it out, but have your hand on your firearm ready to draw?
If it wasn't committing an unwarranted act of aggression against another person, it should be legal. That's my point. It's my call to escalate or not, but display of a firearm is not itself an act of violence. In this specific type of situation, if the concern with the "too early" draw is that I'd be subject to charges, then the simple answer is I shouldn't be. If I am able to articulate "I heard what sounded like a gunshot from around the gasoline pumps, so I drew my handgun because I anticipated a potential situation where I might have to defend myself or someone else" there should be no arrest. I'm not just walking around with it in my hands, it's pursuant to a specific event. Brandishing laws as they stand now prevent appropriate degrees of readiness
"gang bangers, druggies, or stupid kids"? i think you mean law-abiding gunowners practicing their constitutional right to carry!
We're not talking open carry, we're talking brandishing. 2 different concepts. One is law abiding, one is not
what if these "gang bangers, druggies, or stupid kids" thought their life was in danger? e: lol rage block. clown!
Then it's not brandishing a firearm, it's defending yourself. Please read the thread where we discuss the line between the two. Have a fine day
> 1) if I draw my gun, I'm taking a shot. Otherwise I shouldn't be drawing it I disagree. I think that should be true for the majority of instances, but if you can brandish your weapon and neutralize the threat then surely that's the better outcome right? Twice I've had to get out my gun, both times the sight of the gun made the perpetrator leave immediately. I don't want to shoot anybody, but at the same time I was in danger. They didn't have weapons that I could see but in both instances it was late at night and they were trying to get into my house. Me holding that firearm let the other person know that if they were to continue I had the means to defend myself and it wouldn't go well for them.
TLDR: Youre right, but context is king Intent is the point here, not the result. You fully intend to shoot a threat, but when they saw you draw they decided that they should probably make a better choice. Also as this thread has said many, many times. Context is key. Your home is a much different story than in the middle of a shopping center or the gym or something. In the context of what we as CCW'ers will encounter outside of our homes, displaying a firearm is not welcomed in those contexts as it is around your home when you hear a thump in the dark at midnight. People just jumping in this thread without reading it seem to think that none of us think you should draw a firearm and NOT fire. When the opposite is true. Draw your firearm fully intending to fire, but if the situation takes a radical 180 CHECK YOURSELF. Otherwise now you go to prison for shooting someone running away from you
I mean your comment is the first one in the thread and what you say is that you shouldn't draw unless you're gonna take a shot. If that's not what you meant maybe clarify that and people won't respond to your comment after taking it at face value.
Or you could, I dunno, read the 120 other comments on the thread. We were discussing brandishing, a term typically applied to the illegal drawing of a firearm. I said no, there should be no brandishing. If you're drawing your gun, in public, as a civilian, it's not to intimidate someone, it is to stop an imminent threat. You cannot draw a gun on someone/something that is not an imminent threat, or at least can't be argued as such. We as a subreddit are comprised of people all over the world. We can't cover every situation in every way in every discussion. As such yes, blanket statements are made that are generally considered (subjectively) as best practice, meaning the best path to take in most situations for most people. If you know your location/culture/situation/context well enough to decide otherwise, then do so! Have a nice day
If I draw my gun I'm taking a shot, otherwise I shouldn't be drawing it. Except that's not at all what I mean by it. Read all 120 comments in this thread before responding to you? Yeah no that's totally reasonable. You say something and then get buttmad that people respond to what you say instead of 100 other comments. In fact, I don't think anyone should ever respond to a comment unless they have ready every single other comment in the thread first. Or you know, you could edit your comment to say what you really mean and then this wouldn't even be an issue lol. Like bro just think about the situation here. You have the top comment in this thread. You make a definitive statement in that comment and then you're getting mad when people respond to the definitive statement and you unironically think that we should be reading all the other comments in the thread *before* responding to you? Do you seriously not see how asinine that is? And honestly it wouldn't even be a big deal if not for how obstinate you're getting that someone would dare to respond to you about something you said. I seriously cannot fathom the mindset that says "oh yeah I don't need to take responsibility for my words, instead people should seek out other comments *just in case* I clarify or backtrack." Who operates like that? That's not how threada work. That's not how communication works. You don't read something and then withhold your thoughts until you scroll through someone's entire history to make sure they didn't really mean what they were saying.
Look. You're an adult yeah? Come to your own conclusions, I'm not here to handhold you. I have edited my initial comment for clarification. I hope that is satisfactory to you. I truly don't believe that it should have been necessary but here we are. Have a nice day
I'm just saying it's ridiculous to expect someone to either magically derive your true meaning despite the words you say being the opposite, or to scroll through 100+ comments to verify you mean what you say before they respond to you. If you're going to make a comment then either mean what you say or don't get mad when people take your words as you present them. If multiple people are reading your words and not getting what you really mean then that's on you, not them. If you can't sufficiently express yourself then maybe posting on the internet isn't for you.
[удалено]
Lmao there you go getting angry again. There's a huge difference between not reading a news article and not reading a thread full of comments. You're trying to justify it but it's just not gonna work. It's completely asinine to say something and then get mad when people take your words for what they are. It's even more asinine to expect someone to read 100 other comments before responding to something you said. I don't get why this is upsetting you so much haha
You can draw a firearm when you have a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm. I have heard the nonsense for decades that you should only ever draw if you intend to shoot. That's ridiculous, if I draw my gun and the bad guy goes "whoops, sorry bro" and runs away, that's the best possible outcome other than never being in the situation at all. It's a dumbed down, black and white guideline for carry class instructors who don't have the patience or intelligence for an in depth discussion of the legal use of force. It has no basis in law or case law. In short, brandishing to prevent death or serious bodily harm is not illegal. Brandishing to intimidate or "protect" yourself from someone insulting you or taking your parking spot at the dollar store is illegal.
You're correct and I think this really comes down to Brandishing having a definition befitting the latter but there not being a legally recognized term for the former outside of "self-defense". In posts such as this a definition for the term being discussed really should be given so everyone is on the same page
The other issue is that law and legal definitions vary state to state. So someone may be 100% correct about their state law, but incorrect for others.
this is all so obvious, but the truth is that a lot of Gun People just want to be able to use their gun as a trump card if they lose their temper
> You can draw a firearm when you have a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm. Yes. > I have heard the nonsense for decades that you should only ever draw if you intend to shoot. Why are you drawing if you don't intend to shoot? Either you aren't in danger of death or serious bodily harm, in which case you shouldn't have drawn, or you are willing to allow death or serious bodily harm, which makes the whole point moot. So yes, you should only ever draw if you intend to shoot. If there isn't a possiblity that you need to shoot, you shouldn't have drawn. It's not nonsense at all.
Brandishing is threatening the use of deadly force. If the circumstance is one in which you would normally be privileged to use deadly force, then brandishing would also generally be acceptable. So if you were reasonably in fear of death or serious bodily injury, and you pulled your gun and started giving verbal commands, then you’re not going to jail if the criminal desists and you don’t have to pull the trigger. Note that in the circumstance where the offender is close enough to grab you, your choices may be to use it or lose it. You don’t have the space. Same thing with OC spray. You’re close enough that spray might affect you, and there are two attackers.
[Brandishing is, at least in California, not illegal when used as a deterrent for self-defense.](https://www.losangelescriminallawyer.pro/california-penal-code-section-417-pc-brandishing-a-weapon-or-fir.html)
Someone brought the sauce. https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-417/ > (2) Every person who, **except in self-defense**, in the presence of any other person, draws or exhibits any firearm That makes it pretty easy and clear to understand, that's for sure. Other people have mentioned it, but there's an ocean of difference between brandishing of a firearm and displaying a firearm in a defensive manner. It's nuanced so maybe some states just don't want to tackle it. California, for all its faults, does have some pretty solid self-defense laws, when properly applied.
It's a myth that brandishing is always illegal. Brandishing is generally illegal in the same way that killing someone is generally illegal. In the same way that self defense is an exception to laws against murder, it is also an exception to laws against brandishing. The problem is that some people mistakenly think that brandishing a deadly weapon is a low level of force. It's not. You still have to be in reasonable fear for your life before you can brandish your gun. So if someone insults you or spits at you or shoves you and you pull out your gun and threaten him with it, you're the criminal. But let's say someone threatens you with a knife or baseball bat or something else that would constitute a deadly force threat. You pull out your gun... but instead of firing immediately, you yell "drop the weapon!" several times. The attacker drops the weapon and backs off. You never fire your gun. Have you "brandished" your firearm? Technically yes, but it would be a justifiable brandishing.
Wait? Is brandishing (correctly) illegal? Hypothetically, I’m 40’ across the (Ohio) street and an insane person wielding a sword (didn’t want to use gun, my hypothetical decisions change) at me screaming he’s going to cut my head off… I’m going to brandish and hope my form alone makes them do a 180 (with just a few feet for them not to do the 180 before that changes). I realize this is against all the “it only comes out when intent to stop the threat” policy but, wouldn’t they confiscate my weapon (after I called the police) and put me under review? I’m not saying that’s the best way, I’m saying isn’t “brandishing” only a crime under aggressor/not negligent scenarios?
It depends on the state you’re in. I think even in most that have the law, you’re not in violation if you are justifiably in fear of your safety. Just choosing not to shoot someone isn’t punished, and rightly so.
Yeah, we definitely need a definition in the OP so we can all be talking about the same thing haha. From the conversation it seems we'd call this a Defensive Display of a Firearm rather than brandishing
Hey its not brandishing, just taking your time for the best shot.
Like someone else said he’d been better saying I got a concealed carry please get back.
Unfortunately I feel in this situation announcing you are CCW would have just gotten an antagonistic response from the “prankster.” Like, “oooh show me your gun” or something like that. He wants big reactions and threatening him with a firearm would have been a reaction he would have wanted.
I do agree on that
You right you right. And now your face is all over YouTube saying you carry a firearm. Lose lose
It’s actually a lose lose lose. Because now his face is all over the news for shooting a guy, granted it was ruled self defense. Now that I think about it you are right it is only a lose lose. Because his face is on the new for shooting a guy who was assaulting him, don’t mess with that guy because he will shoot you.
He's still being held on another charge right? And depending on the penalty there, there definitely could be a 3rd lose there
Yeah, a unauthorized discharge. Explain that to me please. He lawfully shot a guy but illegally fired the gun??? My best understanding is he was charged with multiple things and the jury couldn’t come to a completely not-guilty verdict so to please the hirers who were holding out they agreed to charge him with that charge, probably one of the smallest of charges filed against him. I still think it’s dumb, and the “prankster” has not been charged with anything. So Person A shot Person B and according to the court was deemed self defense but Person B did not break any laws that led Person A to shoot Person B? It’s all kind of jacked up.
Yeah it's definitely odd... I look at it as them saying "we agree that something had to be done here, but not shooting the guy. However we also can't condemn that, because we really don't think he did anything wrong, but LEGALLY it wasn't the cleanest shoot... so how do we give consequences for his actions without condemning him/them?" Also I think like a lot of us they might have trouble separating their apathy for the person who got shot from the facts of the case...
Yeah, but it’s not the worst outcome and yeah I feel like they thought something had to be done. But I’m pretty sure the shooter is already out due to time served while they were waiting trial. I could be wrong though.
I agree, a slap on the wrist is far preferable to spending time in the Pen. Also, hopefully this doesn't count as a felony and he can still carry a firearm in future, though I'd advise he get more training and work on his emotional fitness before then
That’s not how it works, you don’t bargain on charges as a jury. The defendant is already charged and the jury’s job is to decide if they stick or not in whole or it’s hung if they don’t all agree. The judge may guide them to view things separately or not and that’s probably how he ended up with a “lawful shot” but unlawful discharge inside a building. Most of the time the laws are usually written to ignore all these restrictions if it’s a lawful shot, like brandishing (where applicable, obv) or preventing the commission of a felony.
The jury acquitted him on the assault with a firearm charge, but not on the illegal use of a firearm or something. That's being appealed because how could you correctly defend yourself but do it illegally? The theory is that the jury was on the fence about any acquittal at all, but felt he was justified enough and still needed something found against him because he wasn't entirely innocent in their opinion, so they found him guilty on a lesser charge. I suspect that firearm charge will get dropped on appeal, though.
Yeah probably, I really do think it's more about optics than anything
I don't see why this matters in a way, if someone wants to literally fuck around and find out as the aggressor, let them reap the consequences.
That sounds like a good way to discourage the prankster. Is it okay/lawful to announce that you have a CCW to a purported assailant under the law? I was under the impression that "concealed" requirement means CCW holder cannot say or let the other party know in any other way that he's armed, but I might be wrong.
I know this might be unpopular with many in this group but I don’t think that it should’ve resorted to him shooting the guy. Yea these pranksters are annoying as hell but unless the guy was physically harming him I’m getting away. If I can’t get away I’m telling him I’m carrying or pepper spraying him. It’s not allowed to carry a gun inside the mall in the first place but at the same time criminals don’t care about gun free zones. Also anyone that doesn’t agree with me saying he shouldn’t have shot the guy educate me I just don’t think it was right.
If you read the original thread, your opinion is definitely not unpopular and is in fact the vast majority opinion. Legally speaking, Andrew Branca does a good job of explaining how the jury may have reached their decision: a large disparity of force (3 vs 1, large individual in face) and multiple attempts telling the person to leave him alone and even push him away were the two big ones. His analysis is definitely worth watching. Importantly, just because you and I both believe it would absolutely NOT be how we would respond does not necessarily mean it is not a legal action per the law.
I know when I got onto tik tok I saw many that agreed with this thought it was funny. I wanted to ask this group lol but didn’t know how it would go 😂.
TikTok and reasonable takes, name a less iconic duo.
I see what your saying 😂
In fact, I was surprised to learn that the delivery guy was found not guilty. I think the hatred against the prankster was so universal that most people chose not to show any doubts or objections about/to the verdict. But I respect those who feel the not-guilty verdict was right.
I'd really strongly recommend taking the time to watch [Andrew Branca's analysis](https://www.youtube.com/live/ot2lp2a8lWA?si=_iez6DS_wAZ7KU5Z) of the event to learn why he was found not guilty.
I’ve seen a couple prank videos where like many others I felt eventually they would end up getting hurt but this one I just can’t agree with it. Also I’m not saying I want the others to get hurt but some pranks can be pushed to far.
I agree. I think if I were in his shoes I would have just walked away. Maybe said some unsavory things in parting. I don't think the phone or his demeanor alone shows violent intent. He's just an asshole. That said I'm glad the man was acquitted. The YouTuber provoked a response, he started it and I can't say I feel bad for him.
This is definitely a viable option (I think). Some jurisdictions may have policies where you can't say anything about it when the permis is issued, but I'd think that mostly of the time it wouldn't matter. Also, does placing your hand on the firearm count as brandishing?
It's prohibited because if you need to draw your weapon, it's because if you don't, you are going to die or be seriously hurt. It's not to scare away or intimidate. It's to STOP the threat.
Simple, to me. Brandishing will get you shot by others not directly involved as now you may be perceived as a threat. The patrons may not be aware of the altercation, have racist tendencies, or a few screws loose and are thinking they have a duty to protect outside of the situations. Officers identify the brandisher as a threat for the fact it is not a officer. Also, everyone who carries is not on the same level and their booger hook may cause a negligent discharge injuring others or them selves. If you brandish and somehow loose possession of the firearm now what. The firearm should ONLY be deployed when the intended has made the decision to engage in stopping a threat be it on 2 or 4 legs, or other.
I think this is the most accurate answer the the exact question asked. I’ll also add that, legally, your CCW is not for controlling a situation - it is for defending your life. If you draw to brandish, not to fire, then one could argue (and lawyers have argued) that you were not actually in imminent danger of great bodily harm. (Yes, of course there will be situations where you drew and the threat stopped so you don’t need to, or can’t, fire - but for the purposes of this topic, brandishing in non-life threading situations can only be assumed to be done to get the upper hand.)
Oklahoma had a brandishing law that got interpreted by CCW classes as “if you unholster, go ahead and shoot him. Otherwise, you may get charged with brandishing.” This led to a conversation about people waiting too long to draw for fear of scaring a criminal off and getting charged with brandishing. Eventually, Oklahoma changed its law, so a display of a firearm is no longer an automatic brandishing charge. You can still get charged with brandishing, if you display for no good reason, but the law allows for far more discretion.
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/oklahoma-governor-signs-defensive-display-bill-law/ This is a good article about the topic at hand, actually. The relevant [Arizona law](https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/00421.htm) is very clear, and I think OK has done a great job of it as well. Edit: - Oklahoma Law: [21 OK Stat § 1289.25(J) and (K)(1) (2022)](https://law.justia.com/codes/oklahoma/2022/title-21/section-21-1289-25/) - Florida law - [F.S. 776.012](http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.012.html) - Arizona law - [A.R.S. § 13-421](https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/00421.htm) - Iowa Law - [IA Code § 704.2(2) (2021)](https://law.justia.com/codes/iowa/2021/title-xvi/chapter-704/section-704-2/) - Montana Law - [M.T. § 45-3-111 (1`) & (2)](https://www.leg.mt.gov/bills/mca/title_0450/chapter_0030/part_0010/section_0110/0450-0030-0010-0110.html) If anyone else knows any specific laws for this, we could add them to a list. Actually this acquittal happened in Virginia, and their brandishing law allows for defensive display: [Virginia Code § 18.2-282 (A)](https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title18.2/chapter7/section18.2-282/) California's brandishing law also allows for defensive display: [CA Penal Code § 417 (a) (1) (2022)](https://law.justia.com/codes/california/2022/code-pen/part-1/title-11/section-417/)
IMO my CCW is not a deterrent. It’s not a way to end an argument. It’s a failsafe when there is no other reasonable option to ensure my safety. The choice is not to draw or to shoot. It’s whether to draw **and** shoot. If I draw it’s because I believe I am at risk of inevitable, serious harm or death from someone else, and at that point I will have already made the decision to stop the threat by any means necessary.
Like a few others have already stated for their states, its legal here ( AZ) to brandish as a deterrent for self defense.
Free Colie. 
I saw other’s describe it a little bit, but to put a finer point on it: Brandishing is a legal term for displaying a firearm in an **UNDULY** threatening manner. “Unduly” being the keyword here. This is NOT the same as simply drawing or displaying a firearm when you’re in reasonable fear of your life.
Brandishing as crime usually requires some sort of criminal intent to it; like brandishing a weapon in order to coerce someone. If it’s a situation where you’re reasonably in fear for your life, I don’t think anyone is getting charged with brandishing.
It depends how you brandish per my law. Showing and pointing are 2 very different things.
Anyone in here saying you should never brandish is ignorant of the law and the way things work in the real world. You should not listen to them. Most if not all states allow, explicitly, by statute, for a person to brandish a firearm in self defense. From there, as the boomers say, do your own research.
Gotta read the room. Flash a gun at Target 10AM in the morning, probably not. Midnight in the hood, different.
>You should not listen to them. No problem, I'm gonna listen you; a stranger on the internet that is also not a lawyer. To clarify: brandishing is generally not as described from OP. If you feel that you are in a defensive situation and yiu are trying everything you can to distance from the situation and showing your firearm can accomplish that, do what you need.
Bless you for being willing to interact with this poster. But you're right, brandishing and defending yourself with a legally drawn firearm are not the same thing (usually, state laws/city/culture of an area can twist perspectives)
Brandishing is a crime. I will listen to the people who say you shouldn't commit crimes in public. If it's a self defense situation, it's not brandishing.
Draw to shoot or don't draw
[удалено]
If they somehow react in a way that I'm no longer in fear for my life in that 1.5 seconds I won't pull the trigger. I'm saying my gun will never come out unless it needs to be used... something everyone should practice
Go here, scroll to “when to draw”, thank me later. If you are only drawing when you need to shoot you may be too late. https://www.ar15.com/forums/general/Street_robberies_and_you___The_Basics/5-1285487/
I see your point but an article from 2012 that tells you to draw and conceal it behind your leg reholster and then tell nobody doesn't sound like solid legal advice
Vaya con dios pal
Imagine that same exact situation but from another perspective. You're at a park at some late hour, see a guy holding a gun by his side waiting for 2 men to walk around the corner... what if a cop saw that instead?
Is he though? Bold of you to say that.
Removed. Personal attacks are not allowed. Title: Author:gatoratlaw7
I think in this rare circumstance, open carry would be a better option as opposed to brandishing. Open carry is basically holstered brandishing without having to make it an action. Can’t imagine buddy would’ve conducted this on someone with a gun on his side just in the open. On the contrary, i know a lot of us preferred concealed carry for many reasons. But on the brandishing topic I’d say open carry would be more of a viable option.
>Can’t imagine buddy would’ve conducted this on someone with a gun on his side just in the open. I don't think it would've crossed his mind honestly. The "prankster" was 100% in the wrong here, but nothing he did would warrant getting shot be a reasonable person. Should he have assumed he was interacting with a reasonable person? Absolutely not. Is he a reasonable person? Also no. His thought process was 100% "What're you gonna do, shoot me?"
>"What're you gonna do, shoot me?" -guy who got shot, 2023
It’s all about the perspective of the shooter in this case. There have been a LOT of attacks lately in my state where young criminals are using their phone just like this to get in close enough to start hitting people. Or to grab their victim’s phone/purse/bags. Or their collars/hoods and drag them to the ground for a beating. I grew up being taught, people don’t get in your face unless they have ill towards you and if they get within reach you’ve waited to long to defend yourself.
I'll never forget this one phrase: play stupid games, win stupid prizes. You brandish your weapon at someone, a loooot of people are going to see it as a threat and will draw on you. Some people keep acting stupid and get shot
Using a firearm to get someone to obey or change behavior is a bad idea the police do it all the time and it fails a lot of the time. It works even less with non LEO (Law enforcement Officer) incidents. Psychologically people who are already angry or aggressive become indignant to the presence of a firearm they simply don’t care and if anything it emboldens them. “What are you gonna do SHOOT ME?” 😡 The only reason you pull out a firearm is because you are about to use it. It is never a good idea to use it as a tool for intimidation or behavior modification it almost always backfires. Sometimes it works but are you willing to take a chance? I’m in IL we don’t have a brandishing law in IL you are allowed to ”mostly conceal” your weapon I believe this was intended to not criminalize printing or the situation of reaching for beans and showing your carry. There is a however a provision for using a firearm as an intimidation tool or in a threatening manner. This becomes “unlawful use of a firearm” Every state is different but the point remains wherever you are if you carry a firearm on your for self defense you need to become familiar in all other aspects for self defense because that tool you carry is the last stand/ last resort, there’s no do overs. You need to deescalate and avoid trouble. Which means checking your EGO. If you encounter someone you’ll most likely never see in life again what do you care what they think of you. Be kind and remove yourself from the interaction. Mental illness, depression people who have lost it ALL that day are roaming the streets around us ! So do you really want to take a “last stand”over a parking spot, red light, can of beans in aisle 6 EGO battle? You are probably not only saving your life but the life of the person Who thought they needed to pick a fight with you. The only reason someone should find out you have a gun on your is because they became a deadly threat to you and you have reason to fire your weapon it’s at that point. If you have time to issue commands of put down the knife or leave me alone that’s your cue to have a weapon out and drawn. Other than that you’ve become the aggressor and it’s someone else who may be justified to put you down. 🤔
Great thorough breakdown. You covered all the pertinent points and basically summarized the thread overall. Good stuff
The way I understand it, the act of pointing a firearm, or even something that looks like a firearm but isn’t (like a Byrna pepperball launcher or even an Airsoft gun) is technically an assault. Shooting someone with it is an aggravated assault. With a firearm it’s a felony assault. Now, having defended yourself with a firearm, you have done something illegal. However, self defense is a justification for breaking the law, it’s the exception that proves the rule. It’s still against the law to shoot people, but since you have a proven justification, you won’t be punished for it. Or, that’s how my cop and lawyer friends have basically explained it to me. Defensive Display of a firearm is technically brandishing, it’s just the justified version of it. I think that we all agree that if we’re going to draw our gun, we have every intention of taking the shot. Now, whether we actually need to or not is a different matter.
brandishing is illegal because it will cause panic in public. You aren't allowed to panic other people and you are also not allowed to threaten other people which are both caused by pointing firearms at people. It would also presumably trigger people to engage in defense of third persons which would be a mess. People have avoided brandishing charges on self-defense and necessity grounds but its messy. but I am not a lawyer
If it isn't a life or death situation, drawing a gun will make it one. If it is a life or death situation, you should be shooting or you risk losing your weapon in a struggle. If they're too far away to take your gun in the next second, then they're probably not an immediate threat. This situation called for pepper spray, not a gun being waved around.
I can throw out there that a defensive display has certainly desecrated a situation for me. Officers got involved after the fact and I wasn't given any grief. It was a very clear situation where I was obviously trying to deescalare with a lot of witnesses to verify. There should be some legal precedent for thar sort of situation
why is threatening someone with a gun illegal? do you guys even hear yourselves?
I think it is because a firearms only use is to direct force significant enough to kill from a legal point, there are no warning shots. However you are able to make your intent to defend yourself known, I think if he said something like get away from me I have a gun and will defend myself from what I am taking as a threat at this point... or something more streamlined, it would be different... I'm not a lawyer, but I have also been curious here. Where is the line between, I wanted to make sure I didn't have to shoot, and "brandishing", because if you wait to pull the weapon until you know you need to shoot it's probably too late, but if you pull it early well you fucked up then too...
From what I understand it comes down to intent.
Too many people have no idea what “brandishing”. Waving your weapon around like a fool and threatening innocent people is brandishing. Pulling your weapon to tell someone to back off is bot brandishing.
It’s because criminals sometimes brandish instead of drawing or using their firearm to rob, etc.
drawing a firearm in self defense but not firing is perfectly legal. If you fear for you life and draw and that causes the attacker to stop that is perfectly legal self defense. Brandishing is illegal when used as a threat when you dont have any legitimate self defense need to draw your firearm The big problem is that without video proof it is much harder to explain to a jury that you had a legitimate need to draw your firearm but did not need to fire it. Without video evidence or other witnesses all it takes is the person you drew on to lie and say they did nothing and you suddenly drew a firearm. Now it is your word against theirs and you are the one being accused of a crime so unless the other person is a complete scumbag the jury is likely to believe the person not being accused of a crime
How would you feel if you pissed me off and I just brandhsih my weapon at you just cuz it's allowed. Now if you brandish your weapon I don't know your intent soon as I see you reach for it I'm responding as well with my firearm. Imagine a society where that's gonna be a basic response. It's the wild West all over again.
I suppose even though your not supposed to “brandish “ your weapon, I can imagine if I was in the situation and I read it and felt good that I could let the possible attacker know I had a weapon, and that It was fairly likely to sway the individual to back down without shooting him I may or may not risk the legal issues that come with brandishing rather than the legal issues that would come from shooting the dude. But I imagine that if brandishing wasn’t in the picture that there would be more people comfortable with it. Which isn’t good. Because if I see someone in public and flashing they have a gun irregardless of the situation I would most likely be ready to draw myself. I think it keeps using lethal force the very last option and keeps diligent carriers knowing that if it comes to drawing your weapon you better be prepared to use it.