TexasCHLforum.com

Hello all,

I am very new to this forum so pardon me if this topic was already posted (although I checked, I could not find). So, I heard it is against the law to mention you are carrying a gun to back someone off during an argument or something. So say you are arguing with someone and he/she is not threatining your life (yet) but the heat is escalating. Can you mention things like "Look man, I really don't want a problem and I have to warn you that I am carrying a firearm." or things like that to avoid further issues and scare the person off?

Of course it might be against the law to mention you are carrying to intimidate someone for no reason, but how about during a fight or argument?

Thank you.

Do NOT do that. Okay! Case closed. If your life is in danger, like someone produced a deadly weapon, you pull and shoot. Otherwise, De-escalate. Extract yourself with nice words. And, do not ever go into fight. If you are ambushed by many assailants then this another story. All of those issue should have been discussed when you got your CHL course.

chuck-texas wrote:Hello all,

I am very new to this forum so pardon me if this topic was already posted (although I checked, I could not find). So, I heard it is against the law to mention you are carrying a gun to back someone off during an argument or something. So say you are arguing with someone and he/she is not threatining your life (yet) but the heat is escalating. Can you mention things like "Look man, I really don't want a problem and I have to warn you that I am carrying a firearm." or things like that to avoid further issues and scare the person off?

Of course it might be against the law to mention you are carrying to intimidate someone for no reason, but how about during a fight or argument?

Thank you.

Your job as a CHL is to deescalate any arguments that you can. Mentioning you have a gun in itself is not illegal. However, it can be considered a threat of force, so would have to be justified to do so. Here is the law that covers it:

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.

It really isn't a good idea to tell someone that you're carrying and they better back off. However, there are circumstances where the threat of deadly force is justified. For example, before the actual fight, when it is still in the chest thumping argument phase and the other guy is threatening you with deadly force you may respond with the threat of deadly force. The thing is, once you make that decision and cross that threshold you'd better not be bluffing because some fool just might call you on it. In a case like that I hope just opening up your shirt or jacket enough for them to see what you're prepared to respond with will be enough to make them change their mind. IMHO, saying words to the effect that you have a gun are useless. I think the sight of it is far more effective and at least proves that you do really have it and aren't just saying it.

C-dub wrote:It really isn't a good idea to tell someone that you're carrying and they better back off. However, there are circumstances where the threat of deadly force is justified. For example, before the actual fight, when it is still in the chest thumping argument phase and the other guy is threatening you with deadly force you may respond with the threat of deadly force. The thing is, once you make that decision and cross that threshold you'd better not be bluffing because some fool just might call you on it. In a case like that I hope just opening up your shirt or jacket enough for them to see what you're prepared to respond with will be enough to make them change their mind. IMHO, saying words to the effect that you have a gun are useless. I think the sight of it is far more effective and at least proves that you do really have it and aren't just saying it.

I agree. If you're at that point, the threat has to be credible to be effective. If you're not at that point yet, and words alone can end the conflict, an apology is much more likely to be effective than a threat.

Welcome to the forum, Chuck!

Threatening the use of a firearm is legally the use of force.

Therefore, you'd better have a thorough understanding of Texas Penal Code Chapter 9, Justification Excluding Criminal Responsibility to know when you can or cannot threaten a firearm without getting arrested yourself for assault.

Even if I leave all the use of deadly force out of the discussion, there are still a lot of topics to read and understand:

§9.02. JUSTIFICATION AS A DEFENSE
§9.04. THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE
§9.22. NECESSITY
§9.31. SELF-DEFENSE
§9.33. DEFENSE OF THIRD PERSON
§9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY
§9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY

What everyone else said.

Thank you for your replies and thanks for your welcomes. What you guys said actually is almost what I thought, but what I am picturing in my mind is a bit different I guess. So, allow me to hypothesize a case, so that I can understand how this would work:

Say there was a very minor bumper-to-bumper accident, nothing serious happened. But the other person got really mad at you. He is not cooling down and he started to push you around. Like you know, poking and yelling at your face, etc. And he does not seem to cool down. However, use of force seems unnecessary, since he does not have a firearm or a knife or something, but he is pushing you around. He is not punching or anything, but you know, terribly angry and you cannot even call cops because of his temper.

What would you do in such a case? In the meantime, I will refresh my memory about the laws.

chuck-texas wrote:Thank you for your replies and thanks for your welcomes. What you guys said actually is almost what I thought, but what I am picturing in my mind is a bit different I guess. So, allow me to hypothesize a case, so that I can understand how this would work:

Say there was a very minor bumper-to-bumper accident, nothing serious happened. But the other person got really mad at you. He is not cooling down and he started to push you around. Like you know, poking and yelling at your face, etc. And he does not seem to cool down. However, use of force seems unnecessary, since he does not have a firearm or a knife or something, but he is pushing you around. He is not punching or anything, but you know, terribly angry and you cannot even call cops because of his temper.

What would you do in such a case?

You answered your own question. Use of force seems unnecessary, so you cannot use threat of force as you would be guilty of escalating the situation. Your best bet is to tell then you are calling the police to take a report, then get into your car and close and lock the door and wait on the officer. Unless they try to break into the vehicle to get you out, you wait.

Keith B wrote:

chuck-texas wrote:Thank you for your replies and thanks for your welcomes. What you guys said actually is almost what I thought, but what I am picturing in my mind is a bit different I guess. So, allow me to hypothesize a case, so that I can understand how this would work:

Say there was a very minor bumper-to-bumper accident, nothing serious happened. But the other person got really mad at you. He is not cooling down and he started to push you around. Like you know, poking and yelling at your face, etc. And he does not seem to cool down. However, use of force seems unnecessary, since he does not have a firearm or a knife or something, but he is pushing you around. He is not punching or anything, but you know, terribly angry and you cannot even call cops because of his temper.

What would you do in such a case?

You answered your own question. Use of force seems unnecessary, so you cannot use threat of force as you would be guilty of escalating the situation. Your best bet is to tell then you are calling the police to take a report, then get into your car and close and lock the door and wait on the officer. Unless they try to break into the vehicle to get you out, you wait.

Excellent point Keith. Sometimes being right isn't always that important.

If it was the belligerent guys fault, maybe instead of threatening the use of a firearm we could ask if he knows how many cameras there are at this intersection that would have recorded the whole thing and his current actions?

C-dub wrote:

Keith B wrote:

chuck-texas wrote:Thank you for your replies and thanks for your welcomes. What you guys said actually is almost what I thought, but what I am picturing in my mind is a bit different I guess. So, allow me to hypothesize a case, so that I can understand how this would work:

Say there was a very minor bumper-to-bumper accident, nothing serious happened. But the other person got really mad at you. He is not cooling down and he started to push you around. Like you know, poking and yelling at your face, etc. And he does not seem to cool down. However, use of force seems unnecessary, since he does not have a firearm or a knife or something, but he is pushing you around. He is not punching or anything, but you know, terribly angry and you cannot even call cops because of his temper.

What would you do in such a case?

You answered your own question. Use of force seems unnecessary, so you cannot use threat of force as you would be guilty of escalating the situation. Your best bet is to tell then you are calling the police to take a report, then get into your car and close and lock the door and wait on the officer. Unless they try to break into the vehicle to get you out, you wait.

Excellent point Keith. Sometimes being right isn't always that important.

If it was the belligerent guys fault, maybe instead of threatening the use of a firearm we could ask if he knows how many cameras there are at this intersection that would have recorded the whole thing and his current actions?

Usually once a person has become unreasonable about an accident, there is no use in continuing the conversation. In minor fender bender accidents, if they are unwilling to just exchange insurance information then best to make a call to the police, advise that you need an officer to help get information and cut off the conversation with the other person and distance yourself until the police arrive. If it is a major accident, police need to be called anyway, so get them there and let them resolve the situation and handle the discussion and gathering of info.

C-dub wrote:Sometimes being right isn't always that important.

If it was the belligerent guys fault, maybe instead of threatening the use of a firearm we could ask if he knows how many cameras there are at this intersection that would have recorded the whole thing and his current actions?

Aye.

The "Ayes" have it.

chuck-texas wrote:Thank you for your replies and thanks for your welcomes. What you guys said actually is almost what I thought, but what I am picturing in my mind is a bit different I guess. So, allow me to hypothesize a case, so that I can understand how this would work:

Say there was a very minor bumper-to-bumper accident, nothing serious happened. But the other person got really mad at you. He is not cooling down and he started to push you around. Like you know, poking and yelling at your face, etc. And he does not seem to cool down. However, use of force seems unnecessary, since he does not have a firearm or a knife or something, but he is pushing you around. He is not punching or anything, but you know, terribly angry and you cannot even call cops because of his temper.

What would you do in such a case? In the meantime, I will refresh my memory about the laws.

First of all, how do you know he doesn't have a weapon?

As for "poking", that's assault. PC 22.01 (a)(3):

"A person commits an offense if the person:
...
intentionally or knowingly causes physical contact with another when the person knows or should reasonably believe that the other will regard the contact as offensive or provocative."

Depending on the situation, they might get a squirt of pepper spray.

chuck-texas wrote:Thank you for your replies and thanks for your welcomes. What you guys said actually is almost what I thought, but what I am picturing in my mind is a bit different I guess. So, allow me to hypothesize a case, so that I can understand how this would work:

Say there was a very minor bumper-to-bumper accident, nothing serious happened. But the other person got really mad at you. He is not cooling down and he started to push you around. Like you know, poking and yelling at your face, etc. And he does not seem to cool down. However, use of force seems unnecessary, since he does not have a firearm or a knife or something, but he is pushing you around. He is not punching or anything, but you know, terribly angry and you cannot even call cops because of his temper.

What would you do in such a case? In the meantime, I will refresh my memory about the laws.

Shoot n scoot. Jk.

Call the cops. He is threatening you with violence by pushing you. Do not mention you have a gun, because then you are the one who is threatening.

Get back in car. Lie for a reason to get back (getting money, etc.). Call cops/leave.