A holstered pistol or a slung rifle or shotgun is not being "brandished". It's being borne.
Main Entry: 1bran·dish
Pronunciation: \ˈbran-dish\
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: Middle English braundisshen, from Anglo-French brandiss-, stem of brandir, from brant, braund sword, of Germanic origin; akin to Old English brand
Date: 14th century
1 : to shake or wave (as a weapon) menacingly
2 : to exhibit in an ostentatious or aggressive manner
Now that said, I do agree about the advantages of concealed over open carry... most of the time, and in most circumstances. But those other times it should not be prohibited. Plus there are issues with "failure to conceal", or concealing when one is dressed too lightly to effectively conceal a large enough weapon for the circumstances. (Or persons like myself. I have too much of me in my clothing to find a place much anything bigger than one of the newer downsized .380s)
I didn’t say I don’t understand the word. The word has legal meaning beyond the dictionary definition, i.e., federal law defines brandished as, “all or part of the weapon was displayed, or the presence of the weapon was otherwise made known to another person, in order to intimidate that person, regardless of whether the weapon was directly visible to that person. Accordingly, although the dangerous weapon does not have to be directly visible, the weapon must be present.” (18 USCS Appx § 1B1.1)
I suppose we could debate “to intimidate”, but if a stated purpose of carrying in the open is to command ‘respect’ or otherwise communicate the ability to inflict serious bodily harm or death, lawfully or otherwise, it is arguably intimidation. Even a concealed weapon can be brandished, but open display would make the ‘to intimidate’ element much easier to establish. The distinction between carrying with the intent that it be seen by the casual observer and brandishing is not a bright line.