Incident at a "No Services" rest area

[NavyLCDR]

I can't access Oklahoma statutes at the moment. Is it legal for a person with a MN permit to open carry in Oklahoma? If it is, the OP was doing nothing more than switching from the concealed carry requirements of Texas to open carry in Oklahoma - no violation of the law for that.

 

[leprechaun50]

As soon as my pistol was holstered it was concealed by my sweatshirt.

 

[el Godfather]

I think you over reacted and scared them off. Poor guys had to leave rest area and go park on the road shoulder because some one pulled gun out with out of a truck with out of state license plate.

This is sort of a behavior that gives breeding ground to anti gun folks. I would be thinking what the hell is this guy doing showing me a freakin gun??! Just because I dont get out of my vehicle at rest area should not subject me to such threats.

 

[Mainsail]

He did so intentionally, wanting then to see it, that is brandishing. It is typically illegal...

WRONG. There is nothing illegal about holstering a pistol- and that's all he did. I do it practically every day in downtown Bellevue and I don't worry one whit because handgun carry is lawful here, as is holstering a handgun.

Your personal discomfort with the sight of a handgun being holstered is not relevant. You need to familiarize yourself with the definition of brandishing.

 

[Mainsail]

I think you over reacted and scared them off. Poor guys had to leave rest area and go park on the road shoulder because some one pulled gun out with out of a truck with out of state license plate.

This is sort of a behavior that gives breeding ground to anti gun folks. I would be thinking what the hell is this guy doing showing me a freakin gun??! Just because I dont get out of my vehicle at rest area should not subject me to such threats.

Wow, our schools are failing us. What ever happened to reading comprehension?

--They didn't leave the rest area until after the OP.
--The OP never showed them a gun
--The biggest danger to our gun rights is when gun owners act as though they're breaking the law when they are not.

 

[el Godfather]

Wow, our schools are failing us. What ever happened to reading comprehension?

--They didn't leave the rest area until after the OP.
--The OP never showed them a gun
--The biggest danger to our gun rights is when gun owners act as though they're breaking the law when they are not.

The OP did show them the entire holstering procedure. Worrying about reading comprehension is not going to help here. It matter of having a right a choosing to exercise it smartly. Brandishing gun ownership at folks at rest area is not my cup of tea. I understand that readiness is important but it need not to traumatize folk 'those you think' are 'may be' a threat. My philosophy is to be ready and NOT do or show any sign of brandishing or using weapon until an enabling act is committed or imminent by what you think is a threat.

 

[DammitBoy]

Wow, our schools are failing us. What ever happened to reading comprehension?

--They didn't leave the rest area until after the OP.
--The OP never showed them a gun.

They moved their vehicle after the OP showed them a gun. So, wrong on both counts. Awesome reading skills...

 

[TennJed]

WRONG. There is nothing illegal about holstering a pistol- and that's all he did. I do it practically every day in downtown Bellevue and I don't worry one whit because handgun carry is lawful here, as is holstering a handgun.

Your personal discomfort with the sight of a handgun being holstered is not relevant. You need to familiarize yourself with the definition of brandishing.

He even admitted he did it intentionally to let them see. Did you miss that part? Holstering a gun is one thing. holstering a gun with the intent of showing it to someone for intimidation (even if for protection) is brandishing. His main intent was to SHOW THEM. (cough, cough reading comprehension)

Not rocket science, when he even admitted it. Do you make a habit of intentionally everyone around to see your gun when you holster it? Before you start trying to act like a big guy accusing people of being uncomfortable. Please actually read the thread. Post #1 from the OP

As I holstered my pistol I turned sideways toward them so they could plainly see what I was doing.

Please, please, please actually read the thread (cough, cough reading comprehension)


If that is how you holster your gun everyday then you need to take a deep look at your intentions on why you carry

I don't think the OP is a bad guy, and I don't think he was looking for trouble. I honestly believe he thought that was the best way to go about the situation. But I think he made a mistake there. He started the thread to ask if he did. He even wonders if it was the right move. I think the OP is doing an outstanding job bringing this up. But intentionally showing your gun to someone in intimidation (even if for protection) is brandishing. (cough, cough familiarize yourself with the definition of brandishing)

 

[el Godfather]

+1 TennJed

Breath of fresh air.

 

[Mainsail]

They moved their vehicle after the OP showed them a gun. So, wrong on both counts. Awesome reading skills...

Try again.

From post #1:

After I got the dogs back in the car and drove past them they followed me down the highway for several miles before they turned off.

 

[Mainsail]

Do you make a habit of intentionally everyone around to see your gun when you holster it? Before you start trying to act like a big guy accusing people of being uncomfortable.

If the shoe fits....

I holster my sidearm with the same indifference I would if I was putting on a watch or changing to a different pair of shoes- because they are all equally lawful activities. Sorry, but holstering a lawful firearm is not brandishing, his intent notwithstanding. Unholstering or sweeping a cover garment away to expose it- probably.

I was a gun owner in the days before 'shall issue' when if one felt the need they carried without regard for the law. Now my carry is legal, proper, and as regular as the wear of a watch or shoes. If you feel differently then maybe you need to do a little thinking. Acting as though gun carry is unlawful or shameful does much more to further the cause of the antis than the OP ever did that night.

 

[TennJed]

If the shoe fits....





I holster my sidearm with the same indifference I would if I was putting on a watch or changing to a different pair of shoes- because they are all equally lawful activities. Sorry, but holstering a lawful firearm is not brandishing, his intent notwithstanding. Unholstering or sweeping a cover garment away to expose it- probably.





I was a gun owner in the days before 'shall issue' when if one felt the need they carried without regard for the law. Now my carry is legal, proper, and as regular as the wear of a watch or shoes. If you feel differently then maybe you need to do a little thinking. Acting as though gun carry is unlawful or shameful does much more to further the cause of the antis than the OP ever did that night.

I see now that you are a master of backtracking. Your original post was to point out that the OP did not show his weapon. You were shown to be wrong



Then you wanted to point our that what the OP did was not brandishing. Again you were shown to be wrong.



Now you want to steer the conversation completely away from the original topic so you can limit your exposure to being wrong.



There is no shame in admitting you were wrong on the topic. I doubt your ego lets you admit it, but you were. Now you want to change the conversation to something completely different and not even remotely about the original topic. In our education system we call that BACKTRACKING 101.



Sorry if I come across as a jerk, but remember you were the one who started questioning my comfort with guns. I am plenty comfortable with guns and not ashamed of them at all. I am mature enough though not to show them off to make me feel tougher. It is obvious that you want to carry just to impress or show off. That is dangerous and stupid

 

[downunderhunter]

Although I cannot speak from experience with regard to being able to legally equip myself with a tool for self defence, the following scenario is playing out in my mind while reading this thread:

They are hell bent on stealing your car or otherwise. Lets say they can operate the doors on their vehicle without any noise and without giving you any indication that they have popped the doors. They do so. After seeing you holster your weapon and pull your shirt over it, they make like they are reading a map or whatever, and your concentration goes back to the dogs in your vehicle. You have made a decision to continue and achieve what you stopped to do, so your concentration cannot be 100% on them. They both cock their firearms and flip the safety off without making any noticable movement. Free of a seatbelt or any other obstruction, they flip open the doors, exit the vehicle, use the doors as cover and open fire. They have practiced this and are good at it. Do you think you could lift your shirt, draw your weapon, flip the safety off, take aim, and put effective rounds on both perps before they did so to you?

I hope that you at least consider the above scenario and use it as a piece of the puzzle to form your own opinion on what to do should you encounter a potentially bad situation again. I will agree that it is the worst case scenario so I am unsure as to just how worried you should be about a situation going down like that.

My own personal response, hypothetically, with a concealed pistol on me and a rifle on the back seat that I had extensively trained with, I would have made a note of their registration, got in my car, and left. If I had to clean up dog mess when I got home then so be it. When they followed, and if I still thought trouble was brewing, I would have put the phone on hands free and called the police. I will not discount the fact that they could engage you in-transit more effectively than you could respond since it was 2 on 1, so there is that to consider. As to what weight it carries I am not sure.

 

[USAF_Vet]

I honestly do not see a problem with what the OP did.
1) I fail to see how I can prevent an observer from seeing me holstering a firearm in a wide open parking lot after retrieving it from a lock box in the trunk.
2) I prefer to carry concealed and maintain "the element of surprise" in my day to day situations. But, if I'm coming from a place where I cannot carry, and I arm myself at the first convenience, and its in a place where someone might see my actions, as long as its legal, I fail to see the issue.
3) If I am concerned about people who may have ill intentions, a motion, such as holstering a weapon in plain view, might deter the situation before it starts. Generally open carriers may not be aware of a potential threat, but in the situation the OP describes, he was aware. I'd rather the potential bad guy know that I am aware of their presence, and know that I am armed.
4) By making the men aware he was armed, he may have prevented a situation. Had he been concealed, the attack may have occurred and the OP would have a lot more to explain than why he holstered his pistol in a public parking lot.

In a nutshell, I would say the OP did OK given the circumstances.

 

[Mainsail]

I see now that you are a master of backtracking. Your original post was to point out that the OP did not show his weapon. You were shown to be wrong

Please copy and paste from anywhere in any of my posts that I ever said that. Since I never said it, then you must be wrong. STRIKE ONE

Then you wanted to point our that what the OP did was not brandishing. Again you were shown to be wrong.

Shown to be wrong? And where exactly did that happen? It was not brandishing, so you're wrong again- STRIKE TWO

Now you want to steer the conversation completely away from the original topic so you can limit your exposure to being wrong.

Nope, same topic- no steering. STRIKE THREE Sorry, you're OUT.

Sorry if I come across as a jerk...

I accept your apology.

I am mature enough though not to show them off to make me feel tougher. It is obvious that you want to carry just to impress or show off. That is dangerous and stupid

Those of us who enjoy a good debate are very familiar with this tactic, and that's a major FAIL on your part. Inferring that I am not mature, show off my gun, or am trying to impress or show off is neither true nor "High Road". I let it go the first time you tried it hoping you'd rejoin the conversation with something a little more intellectually substantial. I made it very plain in all my posts here- I carry a gun no differently than I wear a watch or a pair of shoes. All are lawful here, so to me it doesn't make much of a difference if someone notices it. It's indifference, not bravado.

 

[ilbob]

JMNSHO.

The OP apparently felt there was some threat. Whether there really was a threat or not is hard to know. Maybe there was, maybe there was not. There is nothing threatening about sitting in a rest area in one's car. Nor is it illegal.

What I do find troubling is that instead of just promptly leaving, the OP goes to the trouble of holstering his gun in a way that appears to have been done to make sure others can see what he is doing, and then proceeds to walk his dogs.

Me, if I perceive a threat, I am just leaving. The dogs can pee at the next rest stop.

 

[TennJed]

Please copy and paste from anywhere in any of my posts that I ever said that. Since I never said it, then you must be wrong. STRIKE ONE





.

--The OP never showed them a gun

.

:lol:

 

[Kleanbore]

Folks, this has turned into an argument about comprehension and other things. Take those comments up via PM.

Wat we have here is a situation in which a citizen stopping in a rest stop felt uneasy about the presence of two others in truck in a rest stop. His heightened level of awareness is to be commended, but he has told us nothing that would lead us to believe that he had reason to believe that he was faced with imminent danger of any kind.

He armed himself as a precaution. A prudent thing to do, most of us would think.

But he went farther than that. He purposely made clear to the men in the truck that he was in fact arming himself. He has given that account on a public forum.

We have summarized a discussion from our stickies about the potential risks associated with making someone else aware that one is armed, if the purpose is to influence the actions of that someone. An experienced LEO has kindly told us what might have happened as a result of that action.

How someone might customarily go about holstering a firearm in a jurisdiction in which open carry is permitted is not relevant here. But lest there be any confusion, one's intent in displaying a weapon, and if the person is not permitted to carry openly, whether or not the display was inadvertent, both as judged by others, could indeed be very germane to the outcome.

We have no way of knowing what the men in the truck were up to or what they were looking for. Once again, keeping one's eye's open and one's guard up are good ideas.

However, the intentional defensive display of a weapon is justified only under certain circumstances. Would the OP have been able to produce evidence of justification? On the flip side, were the men in the truck likely to report the incident, perhaps substantiating their report with imagery transmitted instantly? We just do not know.

 

[HexHead]

There's also the possibility that when they pulled up and stopped again, they were calling 911 to report a suspicious man in the rest area with a gun, and then followed him to give 911 his license plate number.

 

[Kleanbore]

Should He Have Driven Away?

We often use the term ADEE, for Avoid, De-escalate, Evade, and Escape, to describe the "school solution" for obviating the need to use force, including deadly force, for defending oneself. That extends to seeking all possible methods for avoiding the need for drawing, or for the defensive display of a weapon.

If an iffy confrontation seems to be taking shape, ADEE is almost always the most prudent course of action.

Should one simply depart if one sees something that just doesn't seem quite right? That's a judgment call, and it might well depend upon the circumstances. If you have decided to throw a line in the water and some intoxicated ruffians arrive and start behaving badly, it is time to go.

But should you leave a rest stop simply because someone else has come in and stopped, without having done anything to indicate dangerous intent? Suppose the OP had decided to leave. Suppose that the distance to the next rest stop was not unreasonable.

And suppose that at that next rest stop, another single vehicle were to come in and stops. Do we really think that the driver should leave that rest stop, too?

Unless there are clear indications of a threat, I think the answer is no.

 

[anothernewb]

I think the overreacting point is moot. If an action prevents a potentially problematic situation and results in no negative effects; then it was a correct action.

Based directly from your description of events, I'd have come to the same conclusion. I got the impression that the situation gave you a bad vibe. Gotta follow the vibes. if a situation feels funny, it might very well be. Without being there ourselves, it is extremely difficult to arrive at a fair/not fair judgement call.

 

[scaatylobo]

"Bad vibes & feelings"

As a retired LEO,it would be VERY bad if I were called to a report of "brandishing" and the party with the gun used the expression "bad feeling" or "bad vibes" when explaining why he let others see him in ANY manner "brandishing / menacing" with a firearm.

There is no part of any [ that I am aware of ] Penal law that allows you to threaten another with a firearm [ yes that was what a caller could say ] if YOU "felt" bad vibes or bad feelings.

I fully understand the notion that he was in a bad place at a bad time,BUT his actions could EASILY = VERY EASILY got him arrested.

That would not be a good thing,nor would he be happy with the outcome.

 

[Trunk Monkey]

I thought about this this morning, even if everything else was entirely innocent the two guys in the truck could have been antis. I know of at least one Facebook page that specifically advocated calling the police and making a false report every time you see a person with a gun. It has been my experience that the majority of human beings are jerks and there was nothing in the world to stop those two from calling the cops just to jerk your chain

 

[CA Raider]

maybe its time for us to re-visit the definition of brandishing.
it seems to me that Leprechaun's actions fall into a gray area here.

if someone puts on a gun in a holster, and wears it so that it's conspicuous - that's "open carry". if they don't touch the gun and it stays in the holster ... still seems to me that what you have is "open carry". maybe I misinterpreted Leprauchaun's comments, but it sounded like he didn't really do anything more than this. he adjusted his clothes so that his gun was visible.

if someone pulls the gun from the holster, but does not point it at any anybody (or anything), i would interpret that as "brandishing".

or maybe the law doesn't coincide with my personal definitions.

CA R

 

[Trunk Monkey]

What we really need is the Oklahoma black letter law that will tell us whether or not the OP’s actions fit the legal definition for Oklahoma I can tell you that because he deliberately showed his weapon with the intent to intimidate (by his own admission) he met the criteria for Colorado.


Colorado Felony Menacing

http://www.colorado-criminal-lawyer.com/felony_cases/menacing.html

Menacing is the criminal charge that arises if you "knowingly" place someone "in fear of imminent serious bodily injury." In other words, you try to make someone believe they are going to get seriously hurt right now – not at some future date. In Colorado, the District Attorney must prove that you knew your actions were likely to make the person afraid, even if the person was not actually afraid.
Historically, in Colorado, it was necessary for the prosecutor to prove that you intended to cause fear. Now, however, the prosecutor only needs to prove a "knowing" state of mind, in other words, that you knew that you were likely to cause fear.

Menacing can be charged as a Class Three Misdemeanor (M3), or as a Class Five Felony (F5) in Colorado. It becomes a felony when it involves the use of a Deadly Weapon. It does not matter if the weapon is real. You can commit menacing with a toy gun, if you handle it in such a way that you make the person believe it is real. You do not have to point the weapon (real or not) at someone to be found guilty, simply holding it "in a manner that causes the other person to fear for his safety" will suffice. You can also be charged with Menacing with a Deadly Weapon even if you do not have a weapon! Simply telling
someone that you are armed may result in a Menacing charge.

http://www.lawinfoboulder.com/colorado_statutes/menacing.html

Menacing (18-3-206)

A person commits the crime of menacing if, by any threat or physical action, he or she knowingly places or attempts to place another person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury. Menacing is a class 3 misdemeanor, but, it is a class 5 felony if committed:
(a) By the use of a deadly weapon or any article used or fashioned in a manner to cause a person to reasonably believe that the article is a deadly weapon; or
(b) By the person representing verbally or otherwise that he or she is armed with a deadly weapon.