Replies

Then you don't get the point: This use of the term "assault" to include pointing a weapon is an abuse of the language and therefore law. The statute is plainly wrong as a matter of precedence alone.

Let's go to the first dictionary of the English language by Samuel Johnson ca. 1755:

ASSA'ULT. n.s. [assault, French.]

1. Attack; hostile onset; opposed to defence. Her spirit had been invincible against all assaults of affection.
Shakespeare.
Not to be shook thyself, but all assaults,
Baffling, like thy hoar cliffs the loud sea wave. Thomson.

2. Storm: opposed to sap or siege.
Jason took at least a thousand men, and suddenly made an assault upon the city.
2 Macc. v. 5.

After some days siege, he resolved to try the fortune of an assault: he succeeded therein so far, that he had taken the principal tower and fort.
Bacon.

3. Hostile violence.
Themselves at discord fell, And cruel combat join’d in middle space,
With horrible assault, and fury fell.
Fairy Queen.

4. Invasion; hostility; attack.
After some unhappy assaults upon the prerogative by the parliament, which produced its dissolution, there followed a composure.
Clarendon.

Theories built upon narrow foundations, are very hard to be supported against the assaults of opposition.
Locke.

5. In law. A violent kind of injury offered to a man’s person. It may be committed by offering of a blow, or by a fearful speech.
Cowel.

6. It has upon before the thing assaulted.

This definition of course predates the popular use of firearms. The definition of "pointing" a weapon as an assault is a latter-day invention intended to deter the use of a weapon as a means to preclude violence. Pointing a weapon in defense, as opposed to an offensive act can only be a difference in the state of mind. The statute criminalizes a state of mind, which cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

That makes your preference that of a gun-grabber and supporter of common criminals. Hopefully, you don't want to be either.