You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Legally draw?
- Thread starter Mike38
- Start date
Frank Ettin
Administrator
Sharkbite said:...Az has a “lawful display of a firearm” statue. It allows you to display a firearm in a defensive manner without criminal consequences. I dont know the statue or its exact language. Ive only heard students talking about it.
The statute is ARS 13-421. It reads:
Justification; defensive display of a firearm; definition
A. The defensive display of a firearm by a person against another is justified when and to the extent a reasonable person would believe that physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the use or attempted use of unlawful physical force or deadly physical force.
B. This section does not apply to a person who:
1. Intentionally provokes another person to use or attempt to use unlawful physical force.
2. Uses a firearm during the commission of a serious offense as defined in section 13-706 or violent crime as defined in section 13-901.03.
C. This section does not require the defensive display of a firearm before the use of physical force or the threat of physical force by a person who is otherwise justified in the use or threatened use of physical force.
D. For the purposes of this section, "defensive display of a firearm" includes:
1. Verbally informing another person that the person possesses or has available a firearm.
2. Exposing or displaying a firearm in a manner that a reasonable person would understand was meant to protect the person against another's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force or deadly physical force.
3. Placing the person's hand on a firearm while the firearm is contained in a pocket, purse or other means of containment or transport.
So it's not as simple or straightforward as you seem to imply. Certain conditions need to be satisfied in order for the defensive display of a firearm to be legally justified; and there are exceptions.
A vague reference to a statute existing on a subject aren't in general very useful. We need at least a citation. And one needs to read the statute to know what it actually says.
A very good point. This topic can be more complicated than it seems.
For example, I know the TX law about when it is legal to display a firearm in self-defense, but I didn't get into the details on purpose because it takes a lot of typing to explain it.
First, one has to quote and discuss the laws that discriminate between 'force' and 'deadly force'. Then once that foundation is established, the same must be done for the laws about when 'force' can legally be used. The next step is learning the law that states the handgun can be drawn and displayed (in a particular manner--not just any way the wielder chooses) if the progression of circumstances that justifies 'force' has been met.
The bottom line is that displaying a deadly weapon in a manner calculated to put a person in fear that it will be used is a crime unless sufficient legal justification exists. The level of justification required can differ from one state to another, but some level of justification is ALWAYS required.
By the way, the term 'brandishing' comes up a lot in this kind of discussion. It helps to understand that pointing a firearm at someone is most commonly described as "assault with a deadly weapon" or "aggravated assault" or something similar. This kind of discussion tends to blind the participants by causing them to focus only on the situation from their perspective. Turn it around and think about what the situation would be if someone pointed a gun at you in anger. Now understand that is the perspective the other party will have--and the perspective the courts will have if insufficient justification exists.
For example, I know the TX law about when it is legal to display a firearm in self-defense, but I didn't get into the details on purpose because it takes a lot of typing to explain it.
First, one has to quote and discuss the laws that discriminate between 'force' and 'deadly force'. Then once that foundation is established, the same must be done for the laws about when 'force' can legally be used. The next step is learning the law that states the handgun can be drawn and displayed (in a particular manner--not just any way the wielder chooses) if the progression of circumstances that justifies 'force' has been met.
The bottom line is that displaying a deadly weapon in a manner calculated to put a person in fear that it will be used is a crime unless sufficient legal justification exists. The level of justification required can differ from one state to another, but some level of justification is ALWAYS required.
By the way, the term 'brandishing' comes up a lot in this kind of discussion. It helps to understand that pointing a firearm at someone is most commonly described as "assault with a deadly weapon" or "aggravated assault" or something similar. This kind of discussion tends to blind the participants by causing them to focus only on the situation from their perspective. Turn it around and think about what the situation would be if someone pointed a gun at you in anger. Now understand that is the perspective the other party will have--and the perspective the courts will have if insufficient justification exists.
armoredman
New member
@Aguila Blanca;
azleg.gov said:Searching Arizona Revised Statutes for 'brandishing'
Your search for brandishing resulted in 0 document(s) (max 1000). Up to 50 documents will be displayed on each page.
Total Results: 0
Aguila Blanca
Staff
None of which, apparently, leads to a statute that addresses "brandishing" by name. Frank found the statute that sets forth the conditions under which people in Arizona can do what we call "brandishing" ... but the statute doesn't use that term.DaveBJ said:The single quotes messed your search up. Try searching on that phrase without any punctuation -- 72,800 hits.