Class A to Class C

[Keith B]

Keith, when I was in Love Field that night there was no justifiable use of force even though I knew I was being scouted as a potential target. If I'd hit this guy simply because he came so close to me, I would've been the one committing the legal assault. I didn't want to draw more attention to myself by saying anything to them to invoke an attack.

Similar situation: If I would've had a concealed gun on me and saw these three coming down the hall acting as if they were minding their own business. They obviously were not. Maybe I would want to legally expose a holstered firearm because I want to draw attention to the fact that should they have decide to mug me I was going to be more than just a physical handful. This is the number one reason I'm for open carry. I wouldn't be break the law by transitioning for conceal carry to open carry.

As the law now stands, if a person deliberately exposes a concealed handgun it's a Class A. Does deliberate exposure also justify committing a threatened assault?

Actually, you could. Assuming open carry is legalized, if the other person(s) perceived you as the threat because you went from concealed to openly carrying and called the police, then you would have to prove that you were not trying to threaten them with use of a firearm by transitioning to openly displaying the handgun.

Now, if you were already openly carrying, then the manner in which the other people saw the handgun would be in play. If you made no aggressive change in mannerism toward the other people, just slightly turned where the firearm was visible, then that would be hard to prove you were deliberately threatening them, absent any verbal threat or handling of the firearm, just due to the fact they saw your handgun on your side.

[jmra]

The victim in the following YouTube video should've been paying better attention but when would've the assailant give the victim justifiable reason to expose a firearm?

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Shirtless thug with sagging pants and underwear showing carrying a glass bottle automatically means I keep my distance. I will attempt to keep my distance by moving away. If he continues to close the distance he gets a command to stay away. If he refuses he gets to look at the business end of a firearm. If he continues to approach holding a bottle in the manner he was holding it (making it a weapon)...

Monday morning quarterbacking aside, what you would do wasn't the point. I'm picking an actual assault video...as an example...it isn't perfect. Take the bottle away. At what point did the guy committee to a criminal action allowing the victim to have been able to legally expose a concealed firearm? Open carry gets ride of that legal restriction where you can only display the gun if deadly force was necessary. Short of OC passing I'd, personally, like to see the charge for displaying reduced from a Class A to a Class C.

Asking when it's legally ok for the guy in the video to produce a weapon is pointless because it's never going to happen. There's a better chance of TAM winning the Boston Marathon than there is of that guy producing a weapon. I told you what I would do in that situation because the victim did nothing. By doing nothing (failing to perceive a threat and failing to warn the BG to back off) there is no justification to produce a firearm until after the attack as nothing the guy did before the attack was illegal. But I thought the purpose of the exercise was to learn how to effectively defend ourselves legally, not put people in the role of the sheep in this video.
BTW, it's not Monday morning quarterbacking that allows me to tell you what I would have done, it's years of training and dedication to ensure that I am prepared to defend myself and my family. Those who have dedicated themselves to the same know the difference.
You also still do not seem to comprehend that presenting a firearm does not equal use of deadly force nor does the use of deadly force need to be justified in order to present a firearm even though it has been stated numerous times in this thread.

[Tracker]

Keith, when I was in Love Field that night there was no justifiable use of force even though I knew I was being scouted as a potential target. If I'd hit this guy simply because he came so close to me, I would've been the one committing the legal assault. I didn't want to draw more attention to myself by saying anything to them to invoke an attack.

Similar situation: If I would've had a concealed gun on me and saw these three coming down the hall acting as if they were minding their own business. They obviously were not. Maybe I would want to legally expose a holstered firearm because I want to draw attention to the fact that should they have decide to mug me I was going to be more than just a physical handful. This is the number one reason I'm for open carry. I wouldn't be break the law by transitioning for conceal carry to open carry.

As the law now stands, if a person deliberately exposes a concealed handgun it's a Class A. Does deliberate exposure also justify committing a threatened assault?

Actually, you could. Assuming open carry is legalized, if the other person(s) perceived you as the threat because you went from concealed to openly carrying and called the police, then you would have to prove that you were not trying to threaten them with use of a firearm by transitioning to openly displaying the handgun.

Now, if you were already openly carrying, then the manner in which the other people saw the handgun would be in play. If you made no aggressive change in mannerism toward the other people, just slightly turned where the firearm was visible, then that would be hard to prove you were deliberately threatening them, absent any verbal threat or handling of the firearm, just due to the fact they saw your handgun on your side.

At Love that night I would've had plenty of time to transition since I had a good view of them coming down the hall. Could I have left? Not with out going passed them; the hall was a dead end.

[Tracker]

The victim in the following YouTube video should've been paying better attention but when would've the assailant give the victim justifiable reason to expose a firearm?

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Shirtless thug with sagging pants and underwear showing carrying a glass bottle automatically means I keep my distance. I will attempt to keep my distance by moving away. If he continues to close the distance he gets a command to stay away. If he refuses he gets to look at the business end of a firearm. If he continues to approach holding a bottle in the manner he was holding it (making it a weapon)...

Monday morning quarterbacking aside, what you would do wasn't the point. I'm picking an actual assault video...as an example...it isn't perfect. Take the bottle away. At what point did the guy committee to a criminal action allowing the victim to have been able to legally expose a concealed firearm? Open carry gets ride of that legal restriction where you can only display the gun if deadly force was necessary. Short of OC passing I'd, personally, like to see the charge for displaying reduced from a Class A to a Class C.

Asking when it's legally ok for the guy in the video to produce a weapon is pointless because it's never going to happen. There's a better chance of TAM winning the Boston Marathon than there is of that guy producing a weapon. I told you what I would do in that situation because the victim did nothing. By doing nothing (failing to perceive a threat and failing to warn the BG to back off) there is no justification to produce a firearm until after the attack as nothing the guy did before the attack was illegal. But I thought the purpose of the exercise was to learn how to effectively defend ourselves legally, not put people in the role of the sheep in this video.
BTW, it's not Monday morning quarterbacking that allows me to tell you what I would have done, it's years of training and dedication to ensure that I am prepared to defend myself and my family. Those who have dedicated themselves to the same know the difference.
You also still do not seem to comprehend that presenting a firearm does not equal use of deadly force nor does the use of deadly force need to be justified in order to present a firearm even though it has been stated numerous times in this thread.

No, the purpose of this is not when you can justify legally defending yourself. I'm fully aware given that as the law now stands I'd be committing a Class A in the Love Field scenario. That's the point. It's why I prefer OC or at least reducing it to a Class C charge. Open carry can (qualifying for Keith) eliminate my risking a charge. Short of that I'd gladly pay a Class C fine.

[jmra]

The victim in the following YouTube video should've been paying better attention but when would've the assailant give the victim justifiable reason to expose a firearm?

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Shirtless thug with sagging pants and underwear showing carrying a glass bottle automatically means I keep my distance. I will attempt to keep my distance by moving away. If he continues to close the distance he gets a command to stay away. If he refuses he gets to look at the business end of a firearm. If he continues to approach holding a bottle in the manner he was holding it (making it a weapon)...

Monday morning quarterbacking aside, what you would do wasn't the point. I'm picking an actual assault video...as an example...it isn't perfect. Take the bottle away. At what point did the guy committee to a criminal action allowing the victim to have been able to legally expose a concealed firearm? Open carry gets ride of that legal restriction where you can only display the gun if deadly force was necessary. Short of OC passing I'd, personally, like to see the charge for displaying reduced from a Class A to a Class C.

Asking when it's legally ok for the guy in the video to produce a weapon is pointless because it's never going to happen. There's a better chance of TAM winning the Boston Marathon than there is of that guy producing a weapon. I told you what I would do in that situation because the victim did nothing. By doing nothing (failing to perceive a threat and failing to warn the BG to back off) there is no justification to produce a firearm until after the attack as nothing the guy did before the attack was illegal. But I thought the purpose of the exercise was to learn how to effectively defend ourselves legally, not put people in the role of the sheep in this video.
BTW, it's not Monday morning quarterbacking that allows me to tell you what I would have done, it's years of training and dedication to ensure that I am prepared to defend myself and my family. Those who have dedicated themselves to the same know the difference.
You also still do not seem to comprehend that presenting a firearm does not equal use of deadly force nor does the use of deadly force need to be justified in order to present a firearm even though it has been stated numerous times in this thread.

No, the purpose of this is not when you can justify legally defending yourself. I'm fully aware given that as the law now stands I'd be committing a Class A in the Love Field scenario. That's the point. It's why I prefer OC or at least reducing it to a Class C charge. Open carry can (qualifying for Keith) eliminate my risking a charge. Short of that I'd gladly pay a Class C fine.

I think you need to reread the question you posted with the video.

[Tracker]

Ok I see how you took it. But in context the point of this thread/post is using open carry (or Class C) as an increased level of ...deterrence...short of the defender commitmenting to the threat to using justified deadly force.

It seems to me that if the legislature is contemplating OC they at least ought to reduce the A to a C charge for displaying a holstered gun should open carry not pass. I believe it will, but not on campus. If open carry passes but not on campus maybe the charge should be reduced there as well.

I have two in college (both having a CHL) if they were to accidently expose their gun can the college have them expelled? It be much easier for the college to do so with a Class A charge. And yes I know accidental exposure is no longer an office but try pleading that to liberal admins