Hand on open carried gun

[Mavs00]

IANAL, but my understanding to is that there is a distant difference in the eyes of the law between a "display" and "discharge" of a firearm here in TX. You are allowed to display (which is what the OP did) a firearm in any situation that you would be authorized to use "force" (such as punching the dude in the face). And depending on the jury, and the expertise of your lawyer, you likely be able to make a good case for use of force against two (or even one in some cases) persons continuing to approach you after you've given them fair warning to stop advancing on you. If you are and older person, slightly build female or it's late at night (etc....) and the person(s) approaching you is a big hulking male, you are probably MORE LIKELY to convince a DA or jury that you were authorized to use use force and you had a legitimate fear that the approaching person intended to harm you. However, that will ultimately be up to the jury. I DO NOT think that you would EVER be authorized the "use of force" (such as displaying your firearm) unless you have given fair warning to them to stop advancing on you if they have not made any overtly aggressive move towards you. In any situation, you would likely NEVER be authorized a use of deadly force (a discharge of your weapon), unless there is the threat of deadly force against you by the person, which would usually require a weapon to be displayed against you.

I would ALWAYS caution even DISPLAYING (which includes everything from showing it to pointing it at the threat) firearm, even if authorized to do so by law, unless absolutely necessary. If not for the legal ramifications, the simple displaying of a firearm by you, could represent the threat of "deadly force" to the person advancing, or even the not so aware LTC person pumping gas on the next pump over. In general, I would think that displaying a FA should be considered a last resort option in this case. Hell, if I was pumping gas like in this scenario, just remove the nozzle and threaten the dude with a solid dousing of gas or even a good ole fashion TX ass-whumping if he came any further would deter anyone not intending to do you harm.

[bayou]

Mikebass78. Thank you for pointing out that in the post he did not place his hand on the gun. It was mentioned by the OP that others had done so in some of the similar examples he used. The threat of deadly force is justifiable if certain conditions are met. Every situation is different. I am glad for you a single No works to deter people. Unfortunately it did not for the OP in that instance. I have also had persistent panhandlers as well. Luckily I have been able to get into my vehicle and leave without incident. I don't think the OP intended to create panic but to exercise his right to use the threat of deadly force. Your opinion is otherwise and I am fine with that. If everyone had the same opinion on everything then we would be sheep

[WildBill]

IANAL, but my understanding to is that there is a distant difference in the eyes of the law between a "display" and "discharge" of a firearm here in TX. You are allowed to display (which is what the OP did) a firearm in any situation that you would be authorized to use "force" (such as punching the dude in the face).

I would ALWAYS caution even DISPLAYING (which includes everything from showing it to pointing it at the threat) firearm, even if authorized to do so by law, unless absolutely necessary. If not for the legal ramifications, the simple displayin

I suggest you click the link and read the applicable laws http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/S ... m/PE.9.htm

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.

[joe817]

IANAL, but my understanding to is that there is a distant difference in the eyes of the law between a "display" and "discharge" of a firearm here in TX. You are allowed to display (which is what the OP did) a firearm in any situation that you would be authorized to use "force" (such as punching the dude in the face).

I would ALWAYS caution even DISPLAYING (which includes everything from showing it to pointing it at the threat) firearm, even if authorized to do so by law, unless absolutely necessary. If not for the legal ramifications, the simple displayin

I think you are confused.
I suggest you click the link and read the applicable laws http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/S ... m/PE.9.htm

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.

PC 9.04 says it all. Do we need to say more? End of discussion....QED...

[randy634]

As a LEO, I feel what you did is fine and I would not have had a problem with it. We can split hairs all day long over this and get no where with it. You were able to return safely to your family, and that's what matters.

[Mavs00]

I think you are confused.
I suggest you click the link and read the applicable laws http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/S ... m/PE.9.htm


PC 9.04 says it all. Do we need to say more? End of discussion....QED...

Oh no.... I totally understand what the law says, and whoever did the discharge would certainly have to justify their actions in court (which they probably would lose). I'm just talking about the practical (real world) response to someone seeing a weapon being pulled.... is likely all the excuse they would need to start shooting. Bottom line for me...... DO not introduce the weapon into the equation unless there is no other option.

[Javier730]

I think you are confused.
I suggest you click the link and read the applicable laws http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/S ... m/PE.9.htm


PC 9.04 says it all. Do we need to say more? End of discussion....QED...

Oh no.... I totally understand what the law says, and whoever did the discharge would certainly have to justify their actions in court (which they probably would lose). I'm just talking about the practical (real world) response to someone seeing a weapon being pulled.... is likely all the excuse they would need to start shooting. Bottom line for me...... DO not introduce the weapon into the equation unless there is no other option.

If it's a legal CHLer who is carrying we are talking about, there is already a weapon in the equation.

[Mavs00]

If it's a legal CHLer who is carrying we are talking about, there is already a weapon in the equation.

Not if it's concealed. By "equation" I mean the overall circumstances/situation. If I'm walking around concealed, one would generally consider my weapon "out of general equation" for the general public purposes. It's goes without saying the for the concealer, it's always in the equation. That's the whole purpose for carrying.

Look, I'm not looking to start an argument here or quibble about semantics. I stated my understanding/opinion of the situation, which is the purpose of the forums.


**EDIT***
Since you are the OP, I will say that I don't have a issue with how the situation worked out. Bottom line, you got to go home and nothing bad happened. Thats really all that matters

[Javier730]

If it's a legal CHLer who is carrying we are talking about, there is already a weapon in the equation.

Not if it's concealed. By "equation" I mean the overall circumstances/situation. If I'm walking around concealed, one would generally consider my weapon "out of general equation" for the general public purposes. It's goes without saying the for the concealer, it's always in the equation. That's the whole purpose for carrying.

Look, I'm not looking to start an argument here or quibble about semantics. I stated my understanding/opinion of the situation, which is the purpose of the forums.

My response was also my opinion, not of the situation but of your understanding/opinion, which is also the purpose of forums.

**EDIT**
Thanks

[RedRaiderCHL]

Having a hand on your still holstered weapon to deter an aggressor and give yourself a fighting chance should the agressor decide to escalate is not a DC. You didn't choose the situation, the agressor did.
You simply responded (in a measured and appropriate manner I would say) to a situation that you were thrusted into.
Even if you had to draw muzzle down, you have every right to defend yourself against a potentially deadly situation.
Texas is stand your ground state, and you had no knowledge whether the agressor was armed, on meth, pcp etc.

I agree, this Is basically the bare bones to it and what it all boils down to in the end.

[RedRaiderCHL]

I used this at a Valero last night. There was two guys standing by the entrance asking for money. I parked by the pump and began using my debit card to fuel up. Both men started walking in my direction. Before they could even reach my truck I said to them, "Im not gonna give you any money." One of them walked back toward the store and the other kept approaching. I quickly went from concealed carry to open carry and said loudly, "STAY BACK!". The guys eyes opened up he spun around and sprinted back to his buddy. I then switched back to carrying concealed and continued fueling up all while keeping an eye on the two guys.

Thats the first time I have ever open carried. This also happened in San Antonio. We have always had a problem here with beggars but now they seen to be approaching in twos.

This could be viewed as illegal according to the Texas Penal Code (thanks for pointing that out Keith B, it may have saved me from hiring an attorney one day).

Sec. 42.01. DISORDERLY CONDUCT. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly:
.......
(8) displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm;
......

Ive heard of people reaching for or even unconcealing the pistol and grabbing it (before open carry had passed and on this forum) when being approached by a panhandler or after a panhandler doesn't get the point that they are getting a little to close for comfort. I figured with open carry legal now, I could "switch" from concealed to open when ever I chose. But since this disorderly conduct section is in there about displaying a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm, I have decided I will switch to open carry in my truck when getting ready to fuel up.

I never even thought about open carrying nor will I go about my day open carrying. Like I mentioned in another thread, tiger1279s post made me consider trying it at the gas pump.

I only conceal carry, but the last time I was approached while pumping gas I just pulled back my shirt revealing my weapon. The guy backed off. I like being able to show the weapon at times and not have to worry about breaking the law.

I tried it and it worked, but since it could be considered illegal, I will not do it again.

My question is, what could be considered displaying a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm while open carrying. Could gripping an openly carried pistol, like LEOs sometimes do when approaching vehicles during traffic stops, be considered disorderly conduct? How about resting a hand on the pistol, like LEOs do sometimes when they are having a conversation? How about with a situation like mine where a panhandler is approaching, ignoring the fact he was told not to get any closer?

I am by no means trying to make people think I'm a LEO or intimidate the public. I am not gonna go around gripping my pistol while open carrying. I don't even plan on open carrying other than at the pump. All I want to do is keep panhandlers away and make any one of them approaching me as uncomfortable as they make me, all while complying with the law.

Thanks.

You have to take into account the "totality of circumstances." you cannot just say oh its automatically disorderly conduct or deadly conduct. You have to look at the big picture. So the individuals approached him, he said stop, one did not stop. He reacted to a threat. when the threat was resolved, he de-escalated. the threat of deadly force does not constitute the use of it.

but also keep in mind that the use of deadly force is authorized (generally speaking) when someone has fear of death or serious bodily injury; and just because the use of deadly force is authorized doesn't mean its moral.. hence the reason for the threat of deadly force.

there is a reason that cops don't shoot every time they draw their weapon.. its because the threat of deadly force is a BIG motivator.

[TresHuevos]

In the "Five Stages of Violent Crime" article that I am listing below the two guys at the Valero were well on their way to stage 3. It all starts with the intent to project innocence. If you don't recognize and react to it you're playing into their hand.

http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/five_stages.html

Read the article, it's a good primer. The whole web site has some really good material to read.

[joe817]

In the "Five Stages of Violent Crime" article that I am listing below the two guys at the Valero were well on their way to stage 3. It all starts with the intent to project innocence. If you don't recognize and react to it you're playing into their hand.

http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/five_stages.html

Read the article, it's a good primer. The whole web site has some really good material to read.

Great article and very good website T.H. ! Thanks for posting, as it is chocked full of good info.

[Keith B]

OK, so I started this by saying to the OP you should use caution by doing what someone said was 'just going from concealed to open carry' to deter someone from approaching you. Let me restate my view.

If there is no threat, and you are not trying to 'flash' your handgun at someone to deter them, then just removing your cover is not illegal and should not be a problem in a non-30.07 environment.

If you are going from concealed to displaying your firearm in an attempt to deter someone from approaching, then you must be in a situation where the use of force would be justified. While Texas does not have a 'brandishing' law, the disorderly conduct charge could be brought if there was really not justification for use of force in displaying your weapon in deterring an approaching person.

So, yes, we have the right to use this method to use stop someone who you really feel is a threat, but you must be very careful that it is not someone who maybe really wasn't a threat and decides they are going to call 911 and report a person who threatened them with a gun and gives them your license plate number.

[WildBill]

OK, so I started this by saying to the OP you should use caution by doing what someone said was 'just going from concealed to open carry' to deter someone from approaching you. Let me restate my view.

If there is no threat, and you are not trying to 'flash' your handgun at someone to deter them, then just removing your cover is not illegal and should not be a problem in a non-30.07 environment.

If you are going from concealed to displaying your firearm in an attempt to deter someone from approaching, then you must be in a situation where the use of force would be justified. While Texas does not have a 'brandishing' law, the disorderly conduct charge could be brought if there was really not justification for use of force in displaying your weapon in deterring an approaching person.

So, yes, we have the right to use this method to use stop someone who you really feel is a threat, but you must be very careful that it is not someone who maybe really wasn't a threat and decides they are going to call 911 and report a person who threatened them with a gun and gives them your license plate number.

Well stated Mr. Keith.