Law would approve showing gun

The Salt Lake Tribune ^ | 01/27/2010 | Erin Alberty

[neverdem]

Lawmakers are debating legislation that would make sure gun owners can't be prosecuted for showing a weapon to warn someone who is threatening them.

HB78 modifies existing law that bans threatening someone with a dangerous weapon in a fight or quarrel. The proposal would exempt from that prohibition anyone who displays a weapon -- or claims to be carrying one -- as a self-defense measure.

Utah law already protects the use of force in self-defense of the defense of others, but Rep. Stephen Sandstrom, R-Orem, said his bill would protect gun owners in actions short of pointing and firing a weapon. "If you are, by law, allowed to point a gun at someone, that would escalate the situation," he told the House Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Committee Wednesday, "but if you're just able to display it, it wouldn't escalate it." Sandstrom said he is considering adding language to distinguish the bill from "open carry" protections for gun owners when the committee continues its review Friday.

Salt Lake City attorney and firearms instructor Mitch Vilos said Wednesday the bill "seems to suggest you have to have justification to tell someone you're carrying a firearm or to display a firearm. That's not currently the [law]."

Trent Lowe contributed to this report.

[neverdem]

Some heads will pop.

[T Minus Four]

Yes, this rocks. I love that they expanded the “castle” law to include your car. I got my CC anyway, but hey...

[SJSAMPLE]

Displaying a holstered firearm to somebody who may mean you harm doesn’t sound very smart. You may be carrying a weapon, but you’re not really “armed” if it isn’t in your hand.

But, I prefer to let each man make that decision for himself.

[NoControllingLegalAuthority]

You can get more results from others by offering a kind word and showing a sub-machine gun than by just offering a kind word.

[ButThreeLeftsDo]

That’s why MN wrote their carry law the way they did. In order to prevent someone from getting arrested and charged everytime the wind blew their cover garment....the word ‘concealed’ doesn’t appear anywhere in the statute.

“On, or about ones person or clothing.”

[LeGrande]

This is another bad law. First of all there should be no concealed carry laws. The right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

By specifically stating which rights we have in regards to bearing arms they are limiting our right to bear arms.

[green iguana]

I wish we could do that here in Texas. Brandishing to defuse a threat is highly illegal. I could draw, fire and kill to defuse a threat, but I could go to jail for brandishing.

[Red in Blue PA]

Indeed. Most guns laws make no sense (not to mention are unconstitutional).

Brandishing to defuse a threat is better than having to kill someone, yet the gun owner could go to jail for it in many states.

Gun owning legislators should make the gun laws. Period.

[TheZMan]

Not sure where that line lays. According to my relatively recent course, you can draw and aim and tell them to back away etc. and it’s not a problem.

[Dead Corpse]

"If you don't play the game, why should you expect to make the rules?"

I haven't had to dredge that one up in a long time. Still works!

[JimRed]

Here in NJ that is called “brandishing” a weapon, and is a criminal offense. Someone not knowing the situation sees you scare off the criminal, calls the cops, and you get busted!

[Talisker]

By specifically stating which rights we have in regards to bearing arms they are limiting our right to bear arms.

It's worse than that - once they switch the law around to make it specify what WE can do, versus what THEY can do, we lose ALL of our rights automatically. Instead, we get the "privileges" they specify - and if it's not specified, we don't get it. This is the outrage of the "normal" statutory laws and administrative rules and regulations everyone takes for granted. It's literally The Big Lie.

[Hotmetal]

I was taught not to draw your weapon unless you were going to use it,and if you do draw your weapon you better use it,no warning shots,don't stop until threat is eliminated.

[Domandred]

There are a lot more unreported brandishing in self defense than there are reported shooting in self defense.

Usually neither the bad guys nor the good guys report brandishing.

[batter]

I agree with you but at least this is a step in the right direction (albeit one we shouldn’t have to take, in the first place).

[marktwain]

Somewhere between 90 -95 percent of the time, the mere display of a firearm is enough to defuse the situation. The aggressor runs away.

If you wait until you have been attacked, it may be too late to get the firearm out before you have been injured. This has happened a number of times.

Certainly, you must be prepared to stop the threat if they choose to attack, but it is good to have the option of displaying the firearm. It would be better if the bill made clear that the display were alright as long as the firearm were not pointed at the aggressor.

[SJSAMPLE]

I've always felt that, if a gun was worth showing, it was worth drawing.

Show a gun and somebody knows you have a gun. You're still "unarmed" (technically) and you haven't shown the slightest inclination towards using it. That leaves you open to a later attack.

Actually drawing the weapon shows that your serious enough to make the commitment, and actually looking down the barrel of the weapon adds a whole new dimension for any potential assailant.

The "21 foot" rule is still in effect, since a holstered weapon is just that. It isn't any more readily available, but now they know you have it.