Michigan probably isn't an open carry state. Brandishing involves purposefully showing a weapon with the intent to intimidate. If the gun never leaves the holster, he never placed his hand on it and never referred to it, he wasn't brandishing.
If someone isn't mature enough to have a disagreement with someone carrying a gun without letting their imagination terrify them, they need to go finish the sixth grade.
It's precisely that sort of immature, "He's gonna shoot me!" whining that has nearly destroyed the second ammendment in the first place.
If you feel that someone else's wearing a gun restricts your preferred course of action, you are your own witness that you shouldn't be doing that.
I am not sure what it is about this thread that prevents some from seeing the point. Once again, no one is saying he does not have the right to carry a weapon.
No one is claiming they "wet their pants" at the sight of a weapon.
No one says he could not have asked the group to please keep it down.
If you go back and re-read the post you will see that most are concern about CJ's judgment and the way he handled the situation. We are concerned over CJ's well being.
The concern is that he put himself in potential jeporady over what we can all concede was a minor problem.
He did not know anyone in that group, he did not know what their reaction would be, he thought that the display of his weapon would prevent them from doing anything. And in this case it worked, but he did not know it work.It is that point those that disagree with CJ's action are discussing.
It is not a big leap to play "what if" from that point to see that every outcome would be disaster for CJ.
That is where the lack of judgment comes in. He put himself in a position where almost every outcome he loses, and if it was not for the good sence of some drunk young adults, it could have turned out differently. I don't know about you, but I sure would not bet my future on the good sense of some unknown drunk young adults.
The one thing that saved him was that the members of that group for reasons we do not know, did not escalate the confrontation.
CJ's errors (in my opinion) does not include wearing a gun in public, I could not care less.
CJ's error does not include asking the waitress or when that failed asking himself for the group to quiet down.
The error comes from getting up, and approaching the group, and circling them so they could all see his weapon. (And in a purely practical sense, by getting that close to the group if their intent was hostile, he could have been overpowered before he had time to draw his weapon, but that is not main part of the discussion).
In my opinion, this now made him the aggressor in the situation, and the one responsible for whatever follows.
That is the only point of discussion here.
(1) Was CJ correct in using the display of his weapon to force a group in a public place to lower their voices?
(2) If yes, was there any risk in doing this?
(3) Was the dispute worth the price CJ would have to pay if they called his bluff, and it escalated to where he had been forced into pulling his weapon on the group?
(4)Was the dispute worth the price CJ would have to pay if he had to shoot someone?
In risk assessment the rewards need to equal or exceed the risk.
CJ put his life, his future, at risk for what? So he could enjoy a quiet breakfast. The reward was too small, and the risk were too great, which is why some of us questioned CJ’s judgment.
Have a good day I am off to work.
In fact, Michigan is an Open carry State, with some restrictions. Reading the article, someone who got up, circled the table and made sure everyone saw your firearm, is brandishing. You don't have to draw it. While we can debate "intent", I'd only say that I wouldn't want to be in court defending my intent on this one. Regards.