New AZ law concerning/clarifying "brandishing" a firearm...

[m_kirk2001]

114 / SB 1243 / §13-421 / Defensive display of firearms protection

"Defensive display of a firearm" means: 1 - Verbally telling someone that you have a firearm or can get one; 2 - Exposing or displaying a gun in a way that a reasonable person would understand means you can protect yourself against illegal physical or deadly physical force; and 3 - Placing your hand on a firearm while it is in your pocket, purse or other means of containment or transport.

Defensive display is justified when and to the extent a reasonable person would believe physical force is immediately necessary to protect yourself against another person's use or attempted use of unlawful physical or deadly physical force. A defensive display is not required before using or threatening physical force, in a situation where you would be justified in using or threatening physical force.

Defensive display is not justified if you intentionally provoke the other person, or if you use a firearm in the commission of a serious offense or violent crime (defined in §13-706 and §13-901.3).

This important new law clarifies that a proper defensive reach for or announcement of firearm possession is an acceptable element in the continuum of self defense, and should not be charged as a crime. Improper display of a firearm can be anything from a class 1 misdemeanor (e.g., disorderly conduct) to a class 3 felony (e.g., aggravated assault). It also helps balance out the problematic and arbitrary "threatening exhibition" of a gun allegation that prosecutors can make in charging a felony as a "dangerous offense" (§13-702 and 704). The threat of this extra charge can be used to coerce a plea agreement, and now this is balanced with a specified stipulation of proper display of a gun without firing at a potential assailant.

http://www.gunlaws.com/AGOG2009.htm

 

[mljdeckard]

If I pull it, I plan on using it. It may well de-escalate after I pull, but I will never pull to try to MAKE it de-escalate.

 

[sonier]

i like that law it clarifys things very well for me, it also i think is reasonable. as my father told me if you pull a gun on someone you better mean to pull the trigger. so this makes sense a hand on your gun is a great way too stopping a threat, if they proceed afterwards then you are in a life threating situation, and it should be justified to pull your weapon.

 

[armoredman]

It is good law.

 

[Warhawk83]

It didn't give me a headache to read it,so it is the best written legal document I have ever seen.

It's a hard question to answer for me, if I am physically threatened to the point that I feel I need to pull my weapon, the situation may or may not deescalate after I pull it. If I had a gun pulled on me I wouldn't know if I'd give up, try to grab it(if unarmed),or pull my own and shoot. In the end I feel that if you pull it,you damn well better be ready to fire. You only have a split second after pulling to make the decision...before it is made for you.

 

[CoRoMo]

To say that, "If I am in a situation where I draw my gun, I will without hesitation fire the gun", is reckless. I know that you dang well better be ready and willing to fire, but at the same time, you had dang well better be ready and willing not to fire. To fire simply because something caused you to draw, is irrational IMO.

I've drawn my handgun twice in my life. Neither time did I shoot.

 

[MT GUNNY]

Montana has a Similar but Simpler:

1) Any person who is not otherwise prohibited from doing so by federal or state law may openly carry a weapon and may communicate to another person the fact that the person has a weapon.
(2) If a person reasonably believes that the person or another person is threatened with bodily harm, the person may warn or threaten the use of force, including deadly force, against the aggressor, including drawing or presenting a weapon.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Texas has had similar for a long time.

Anyone who says "if you draw it you better use it" is an idiot in my opinion.

This just gives some legal coverage for using the deterrent value of a weapon.

Good law.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Something like 90+% of defensive uses of firearms do not involve shooting. I have used a firearm defensively in civilian life 3 times (once against a pit bull) and have not had to shoot.

 

[TheProf]

Good "brandishing" law...

There are times where a weapon is drawn in self defense...but does not end in firing the weapon. The misguided antigun lawyer will argue..that such actions amount to brandishing. After all, if it was truly a life and death situation, you should have fired. And if you did not fire...then perhaps it wasn't a life or death situation ...and thus you are guilty of brandishing a firearm.

Well, I just read about Arizona's new law that allows citizens to draw the weapon in self defense (without having to fire the weapon)...similar to Montana's law...


1) Any person who is not otherwise prohibited from doing so by federal or state law may openly carry a weapon and may communicate to another person the fact that the person has a weapon.
(2) If a person reasonably believes that the person or another person is threatened with bodily harm, the person may warn or threaten the use of force, including deadly force, against the aggressor, including drawing or presenting a weapon.

Are there any other states that offer similar legal protection?

 

[TexasRifleman]

Texas.

Verbal threats as well as showing the weapon are covered, but only once SOME kind of force is justified.

Sec. 9.04. THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. The threat of force is justified when the use of force is justified by this chapter. For purposes of this section, a threat to cause death or serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or otherwise, as long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the use of deadly force.

 

[PhilA]

The misguided antigun lawyer will argue..that such actions amount to brandishing. After all, if it was truly a life and death situation, you should have fired. And if you did not fire...then perhaps it wasn't a life or death situation ...and thus you are guilty of brandishing a firearm.

I always thought this logic was ridiculous, and could probably be easily defended by the following statement:

"I drew my firearm because, yes, at that moment I was absolutely certain I was about to be violently attacked and was in fear for my life. But once the guy saw I was able to defend myself, he turned and ran. Are you suggesting, Mr. Lawyer, that I should have shot him in the back as he ran away?"

 

[counterclockwise]

It is clear in PhilA's case, the defender should fire and accidently miss on purpose (depending on the closing distance, of course).

 

[JT sport]

Vern -- I think I understand what you are saying. But I'm still confused as to how the Pit Bull knew what you meant when you drew the gun??

 

[rightside]

I pulled a gun on a Pit Bull also. Daughter on my shoulder and Son on my hip. I kept telling the dog smile and make a sudden move and Ill shoot ....Or was that was what I was thinking

 

[akodo]

obviously pulling a gun can change things drastically.

Don't pull until there is someone in immediate physical harm.

But if pulling your gun ends that threat, obviously you aren't going to start shooting.

 

[Yo Mama]

I love the new law, but I'm also worried.

With the SC hearing the new gun case, with new laws strengthening where you can carry and more freedom to use it, I worry that it's only going to take one instance of someone abusing the law for it to go away.

There was recently discussion on going back to the duty to retreat as recently two idiots (forgot where but was on the news) shot at each other saying they felt threatened, and shot and killed a 9 year old little girl. Horrible story, but they are already saying due to these 2 that we should go back to having to retreat first.

In the end, here is how I see it: Idiots will make it so we can't continue fighting for gun rights. As a definition, I'll be kind as idiot may be defined as a stupid person. It's not their fault however, our country took guns out of our culture with God, and now the idiots don't know how to use them. I crindge as friends who just got in a verbal argument want a gun quickly and I tell them to go learn some mouth censureship before I'll even talk to them.

OP, sorry for going off on a rant, to answer your question, I'd pull if I felt my or my families life is in danger, and if perp changes their mind I will to.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Vern -- I think I understand what you are saying. But I'm still confused as to how the Pit Bull knew what you meant when you drew the gun??

I suspect the dog recognized by my body language that I was a lot more dangerous than he initially thought.

This ties in with Phil Shoemaker's comments that having a gun in bear country gives you the confidence to behave as you should when confronted by a bear.

 

[M203Sniper]

...because the police do it.




no one thinks twice when the police show a level of force with pistols drawn on a subject and then don't fire. Why shouldn't I be able to do the same?

 

[ambergerftriley]

well i gotta throw in new mexico. brandishing a weapon is not a crime at all, wether in self defense or robbing a bank. but if you do it in a gas station or convenience store, thats when you get hammered. because all of them sell alchohol. and the locations are off limits for all types of carry. so if you brandish in a walmart, gas station, bar, or liquor store, you done for.

 

[Zach S]

Vern -- I think I understand what you are saying. But I'm still confused as to how the Pit Bull knew what you meant when you drew the gun??

Maybe he'd been shot at before.

I had a similar experience with a neighbor's dog that claimed my yard as his territory.

Oh, back to the poll...

At the moment I clear leather, deadly force is (obviously) IMO justified, and I intend to shoot.

However, as a previous post mentioned, the situation may de-escalate when I draw, and in that case I wont shoot.

 

[Kor]

Clarification from LEGAL ISSUES RELATING TO THE USE OF DEADLY FORCE, By Michael P. Anthony(With updated 2009 legislation & D.C. v. Heller note)(Version 13.0 - September, 2009)

There is no duty to retreat before acting with justification, i.e., Arizona is a “stand your ground” jurisdiction. State v. Jackson, 94 Ariz. 117, 382 P.2d 229

Effective Sep. 30, 2009, there is a new self-defense
justification that permits the “defensive display” of a firearm
“when and to the extent a reasonable person would believe
that physical force is immediately necessary to protect
himself against the use or attempted use of unlawful
physical force or deadly physical force.” A.R.S. § 13-421. In
other words, a person threatened with unlawful physical
force or deadly physical force can respond with “defensive
display of a firearm.”

“Defensive Display” means (1) verbally informing an
aggressor that you are armed; (2) exposing or displaying a
firearm in a manner that a reasonable person would
understand is meant to protect against the aggressor’s use
or attempted use of unlawful physical force or deadly
physical force; or (3) placing your hand on a firearm that is
contained in a pocket, purse or other means of containment
or transport. You may not use the defensive display
justification if you provoked the fight or altercation, and you
may not use the defensive display justification if you are
committing a “serious offense” or “violent crime” as defined
by other statutes (A.R.S. §§ 13-706 and 13-901.03).

The defensive display justification is a much more
restrictive version of the statutory right of a police officer to
threaten deadly physical force in response to any potential
threat of physical force. A.R.S. § 13-410(D). However,
witnesses are much more likely to become alarmed if they
see a non-police officer draw a firearm, so the “reasonable
person” standard in the defensive display statute may be
difficult to apply in practice. Therefore, under most
circumstances, the CCW permittee should refrain from
actually drawing a gun in self-defense, unless faced with an
imminent threat of serious bodily injury or death. If
confronted only with a threat of unlawful, non-deadly
physical force, defensive display should be restricted to
verbally informing the aggressor that you are armed and/or
placing your hand on the firearm without drawing it.

FYI, this is the official source material for AZ CCW instructors - the entire document can be viewed at: http://ccw.azdps.gov/procedures/documents/ccw_legal.pdf

 

[chieftain]

Texas has had similar for a long time.

I thought you could not open carry in Texas??? So how could your law be the same?

When I draw I intend to shoot, that doesn't mean I WILL shoot. I am in control, nothing in a gun fight is or should be automatic.

I do like that the law is now clear that I can have my hand on my weapon, without being subject to being accused of brandishing. That sure works for me.

Many folks here seem to be terrified of putting what state they are from in their heading or post. So your comments about your state laws are meaningless. So often the case here. And most of the cases we discuss are subject to State and local laws. My favorite question in most of those discussions is, "where the hell is here? :banghead: Sorry for wondering off just one of my many and unreasonable pet peeves.

I am from Florida originally, which has good gun laws now. Arizona is better. I could not have picked a much more gun friendly state, that folks really WANT to live in.

Go figure.

Fred

 

[Yo Mama]

that physical force is immediately necessary to protect
himself

:banghead:

Just want to point out that it is just for men apparently, as the law only refers to "himself".:banghead:

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Just want to point out that it is just for men apparently, as the law only refers to "himself".

Political Correctness rears its head again.