"Brandishing" law or prior cases?

[RottenApple]

I never understood why some people need to bump an old thread to add false information.

Well. Now I feel a right ID10T for responding. I saw his new response and assumed (my bad) that it was a new thread.

[mojo84]

I never understood why some people need to bump an old thread to add false information.

Well. Now I feel a right ID10T for responding. I saw his new response and assumed (my bad) that it was a new thread.

It wasn't that old of a thread. Nonetheless, it was resurrected with bad info.

[WildRose]

It's really pretty simple. If you have a lawful use of force but not deadly force drawing your weapon would be a crime.

As noted by rob777 above, this is not entirely correct.

PC §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 (which is what drawing your firearm would be), 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.

So if you are in a situation where you are legally authorized to use force, but not necessarily deadly force, then drawing your firearm is only use of force if your intent in doing so is to create apprehension in your assailant that you will use deadly force if necessary.

While they are not always up to date and perfectly correct on matters of law what the DPS instructors taught us on this subject is that the line is crossed when you actually draw the firearm and point it in the direction of another.

IF you feel significantly threatened and put your hand on your gun or just reveal it to the actor in a situation where force but not deadly force would be lawful in order to deescalate or prevent escalation you would be justified in taking that action but if it would not be lawful under the circumstances and you draw the weapon and point it, then you are crossing into the realm of aggravated assault and certainly risk escalating the situation with your display.

As always it boils down to the "reasonable person" defense. First you're going to have to articulate to the police (if they are called or observe the interaction) what justified your actions, then likely to the DA who decides if it goes to the GJ.

If the GJ doesn't feel you were justified then you will go to trial and have to try to convince 12 people not very happy about being on jury duty that your actions were justified.

Personally I don't want to take that risk nor will I advise my students to do so.

If the mere display is not enough to diffuse the situation and get the actor to back off you have a real problem. If you though introduce the gun into the situation by drawing it when you do not have a lawful use of deadly force and things go bad you've just signed your own pass to to the TDC.

[bblhd672]

It's really pretty simple. If you have a lawful use of force but not deadly force drawing your weapon would be a crime.

As noted by rob777 above, this is not entirely correct.

PC §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 (which is what drawing your firearm would be), 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.

So if you are in a situation where you are legally authorized to use force, but not necessarily deadly force, then drawing your firearm is only use of force if your intent in doing so is to create apprehension in your assailant that you will use deadly force if necessary.

While they are not always up to date and perfectly correct on matters of law what the DPS instructors taught us on this subject is that the line is crossed when you actually draw the firearm and point it in the direction of another.

IF you feel significantly threatened and put your hand on your gun or just reveal it to the actor in a situation where force but not deadly force would be lawful in order to deescalate or prevent escalation you would be justified in taking that action but if it would not be lawful under the circumstances and you draw the weapon and point it, then you are crossing into the realm of aggravated assault and certainly risk escalating the situation with your display.

As always it boils down to the "reasonable person" defense. First you're going to have to articulate to the police (if they are called or observe the interaction) what justified your actions, then likely to the DA who decides if it goes to the GJ.

If the GJ doesn't feel you were justified then you will go to trial and have to try to convince 12 people not very happy about being on jury duty that your actions were justified.

Personally I don't want to take that risk nor will I advise my students to do so.

If the mere display is not enough to diffuse the situation and get the actor to back off you have a real problem. If you though introduce the gun into the situation by drawing it when you do not have a lawful use of deadly force and things go bad you've just signed your own pass to to the TDC.

You are entitled to your opinion, I will stick with what Texas law says.

[WildRose]

It's really pretty simple. If you have a lawful use of force but not deadly force drawing your weapon would be a crime.

As noted by rob777 above, this is not entirely correct.

PC §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 (which is what drawing your firearm would be), 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.

So if you are in a situation where you are legally authorized to use force, but not necessarily deadly force, then drawing your firearm is only use of force if your intent in doing so is to create apprehension in your assailant that you will use deadly force if necessary.

While they are not always up to date and perfectly correct on matters of law what the DPS instructors taught us on this subject is that the line is crossed when you actually draw the firearm and point it in the direction of another.

IF you feel significantly threatened and put your hand on your gun or just reveal it to the actor in a situation where force but not deadly force would be lawful in order to deescalate or prevent escalation you would be justified in taking that action but if it would not be lawful under the circumstances and you draw the weapon and point it, then you are crossing into the realm of aggravated assault and certainly risk escalating the situation with your display.

As always it boils down to the "reasonable person" defense. First you're going to have to articulate to the police (if they are called or observe the interaction) what justified your actions, then likely to the DA who decides if it goes to the GJ.

If the GJ doesn't feel you were justified then you will go to trial and have to try to convince 12 people not very happy about being on jury duty that your actions were justified.

Personally I don't want to take that risk nor will I advise my students to do so.

If the mere display is not enough to diffuse the situation and get the actor to back off you have a real problem. If you though introduce the gun into the situation by drawing it when you do not have a lawful use of deadly force and things go bad you've just signed your own pass to to the TDC.

You are entitled to your opinion, I will stick with what Texas law says.

Run with that at your own risk. I'd rather keep people out of handcuffs and out of prison.

[K.Mooneyham]

It would certainly seem that the entirety of the argument rests upon the exact definition of "the production of a weapon" (and we all know that doesn't have anything to do with manufacturing in this instance). Is there any place in TPC that defines that phrase?

[oljames3]

WildRose's statements notwithstanding, Texas Penal Code section 9.04 states:

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.

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm

And a Texas lawyer says:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zINtaXThtpY

Obviously, the wisdom of such a tactic is subject to debate. Opinions differ. Texas law remains clear. TPC 9.04 sets the requirements under which you can use your firearm in a way that does not "constitute the use of deadly force."

[Pedrowfwf123]

Hi guy... i have a question im going back to the oilfield in odessa/midland tx... can i cary my gun in my moms/brothers car even though the car isn't under my name?

[Liberty]

Hi guy... i have a question im going back to the oilfield in odessa/midland tx... can i cary my gun in my moms/brothers car even though the car isn't under my name?

If you have an LTC or you are driving then, yas. Otherwise no.

[mojo84]

Hi guy... i have a question im going back to the oilfield in odessa/midland tx... can i cary my gun in my moms/brothers car even though the car isn't under my name?

I am not aware of who the car is titled to being an issue. As long as you are the one in control of the vehicle and authorized to be in control of it, I do not believe the motorist protection act or LTC laws address who owns the vehicle. Don't take my word as the sole source though.

[Liberty]

46.02. UNLAWFUL CARRYING WEAPONS. (a) A person commits an offense if the person:

(1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun or club; and

(2) is not:

(A) on the person's own premises or premises under the person's control; or

(B) inside of or directly en route to a motor vehicle or watercraft that is owned by the person or under the person's control.

(a-1) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun in a motor vehicle or watercraft that is owned by the person or under the person's control at any time in which:

[mojo84]

46.02. UNLAWFUL CARRYING WEAPONS. (a) A person commits an offense if the person:

(1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun or club; and

(2) is not:

(A) on the person's own premises or premises under the person's control; or

(B) inside of or directly en route to a motor vehicle or watercraft that is owned by the person or under the person's control.

(a-1) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun in a motor vehicle or watercraft that is owned by the person or under the person's control at any time in which:

Thanks. I remembered the part I enlarged above. In the posters question, the fact he is in control of the vehicle, he should be ok.

[Pedrowfwf123]

Thanks guys... just wanted to be safe incase i do get pulled over i dont want to get in trouble... my ltc should come in any time now... i hope... but thank you both