Tunnel Rat said:
Do you have a link to the story in which you read this?
It wasn't a story with a link. It was several PM discussions with two different attorneys on one of these forums. But I'll try to find some additional info as time passes -- you've given me the incentive to follow up.
Tunnel Rate said:
Unless you live in the middle of nowhere simply bringing your pistol up will likely find the muzzle potentially pointing at someone in a nearby dwelling, even if hundreds of feet away (something to keep in mind too since modern homes are like tissue paper).
Reductio ad asburdum is an argumentation technique in which one party tries to demonstrate that a statement is false by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its acceptance. It works even better when you push that point to an extreme.
Someone in a house in the neighborhood who is able to see a flashlight illuminating them isn't going to know that it's attached to a handgun unless they're close. If they don't know they won't call the cops or try to hire an attorney for a civil suit. But if they're close enough to see your weapon with a mounted light, and they're covered, the situation can change.
TunnelRat said:
This would mean anytime you raise a pistol you're potentially guilty of assault by this definition.
If that pistol is loaded and you're covering a person nearby, and THEY consider it to be a dangerous and unjusitified act done without cause on their part, you could find yourself charged with assault -- by definition (see below). If you have any attorney friends, talk with them to see what they it may be absurd in some states, but a big issue in others. The Wikipedia definition of assault is shown, below. I added the underlining and bolding to the
Wikipedia definition, below:
In criminal and civil law, assault is an attempt to initiate harmful or offensive contact with a person, or a threat to do so. It is distinct from battery, which refers to the actual achievement of such contact.
An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm. It is both a crime and a tort and, therefore, may result in either criminal and/or civil liability.
TunnelRat said:
I could see brandishing or maybe even criminal threatening in some anti-gun districts, but assault seems nuts (and for the latter two I think you need to show intent right?).
Brandishing and criminal threatening are extreme cases and are typically handled as more severe infractions than assault. And it might not arise just in some "anti-gun" districts. In California, for example, there is no requirement that the weapon actually be used or discharged, that person with the weapon actually harmed the victim or that those who felt threatened actually saw the weapon. California doesn't like brandishing.
What
you consider a THREAT doesn't matter as much as what the person who feels THREATENED considers a threat. Some of our anti-gun neighbors might be very willing to bring criminal or civil charges, if only to do it as a form of harassment.
TunnelRa said:
I wouldn't advise people to go searching in public with a pistol and light unless absolutely necessary and I'd say if you're searching you might rather extricate yourself and call for the cavalry to cover your butt legally. And of course muzzling people is something that needs to be avoided as much as possible.
I agree with all of that, but would note that muzzling someone is hard to avoid when the light you're using is mounted on your weapon.
And if you're carrying concealed, feel at risk, and are contemplating the use of lethal force, you WILL TYPICALLY BE IN A PUBLIC LOCATION -- as there's otherwise little reason to have your weapon concealed. If you're in your yard, and a stranger is standing just across the property line in a neighbor's yard, and you use a weapon-mounted light to illuminate him (or her), what then?
TunnelRat said:
I'd also point out that most handheld light techniques will involve the light and the pistol pointing in the same direction eventually as that's pretty much the point.
True. But you can point them in the same direction without having them physically together. Unless the light and gun are together, there's no way for the other party to know that they're being covered by a loaded weapon unless there's enough light for them to see you clearly.
TunnelRat said:
Now you can choose to lower the pistol and then use the light separately and if searching a place it's likely a good idea, but then you have to get both the light and the pistol back up together in good order and that's something you want to practice so you're not fumbling. With weapon mounted lights putting out 500 lumens these days, you can keep the pistol at the low ready and have it illuminate a large room as is, and then simply bring it up to fire. Also, if you do a mag change, have to help someone, move an object, or get shot you could easily find yourself down to one arm, making a two hand solution problematic. Every system has its pros/cons, and you can always choose to use both.
I agree with all of that too. Low ready will work far better INSIDE than OUT, however. Some folks carry the light in their weak hand and move the light to the gun when appropriate, using any of several techniques.
In the military, in combat situations, the light is typically mounted on the weapon. My son was a SWAT Team member for a while, and that team trained to go into rooms with lights mounted on their weapons! (He changed departments before he ever had to do it in the real world.) If you know ahead of time that there is someone intent upon doing you harm, the conditions change -- and your response will change, too.
Light reveals your target, but it also reveals you (particularly if the other person is behind cover; it's a two-edged sword, and you may just have to do what seems best at the moment.
