Carrying In Vehicle w/o CHL

[Gonyea]

officer of what the garage. I forget the Garage security business meeds you need to have a master in criminal justice and a law degree

 

[Rbrt]

Commando Rbrt, get over it.

But I do appreciate you correcting my using the wrong word. To do that and the rest of the blah blah, shows how much of an impression it made. Obviously this is a sensitive issue for you.

I think it's obvious you got the message and hopefully see fact that a gun isn't a casual instrument of control. Enjoy the day.

(see, too easy )

Your honor, I'm stunned and not a little impressed ... I was fully expecting you to keep the good times rolling.

Well it WAS quite an experience ... but just in the what-might-have-been's. A different turn of events could have left that lady a widow and those 2 little boys without a Dad, something that I don't know that I'd ever forgive myself for, regardless that you gotta do what you gotta do.

Not to mention that this was First Colony Mall lin Sugar Land last Saturday, big sales everywhere, and 80% of the people who were in the mall that day would probably have sided with him for sociological reasons, regardless of the rightness of my cause ... it could have been Brighton Beach in Coney Island ~ 10 years ago all over again.

But it didn't happen, in some part because he was alert enough to figure out that there was some reason that this slender old guy was watching
him with concern but no fear. And THANK GOD!

OK, enough for the blah, blah blah.

 

[M. Sage]

Please review. You introduced the idea that because you had a gun, you were in a better situation when involved in an incident involving getting a good parking place. It's no surprise sarcasm poured in your direction.

Regardless of what you said or did, you posted something that showed recklessness and irresponsibility whether it's what really happened or not; you eluded to it being true. I have a feeling you were just caught up in the discussion and were for some reason, compelled to embellish the story, but it didn't work out well for you.

Really? It sounded to me like he was in an unexpected situation that could have taken a turn for the worse, but was able to handle it confidently because he had a concealed handgun.

I've seen similar situations that didn't end so well. Some of these kids are big and rude and can/will stomp someone into jelly over a parking spot like this.

Alright, I'm half-witted at times and my story does read very funny, so I'll elaborate. I pulled in a parking lot where every car gets searched (Never been there before, did not know), I immediatly told the personnel I had 2 guns in the trunk, thats when they told me to wait for an officer. A man came out of the building (plain clothed) and addressed himself as officer so and so and gave me my new chunk of wisdom requarding Texas gun laws.

Please share where this was. I don't want to accidentally show up at this parking lot.

 

[JKTex]

Some of you guys provide priceless entertainment!

I'm waiting for the story about how someone's glad they went ahead and gave the high price for an AR because it gave them the confidence to handle a serious situation in the produce department over a picked over display of banana's on sale.

Maybe this is is the true and sad result of to many shoot'm up video games with the ol' buddies from the class of 2007.

 

[40Arpent]

Really? It sounded to me like he was in an unexpected situation that could have taken a turn for the worse, but was able to handle it confidently because he had a concealed handgun.

How and why would he have acted differently if he didn't have a concealed weapon? It kinda sounds like (now that we have more of the real story) he was nice, courteous, and bowed to the other guy's plea. The original version sounded more like "Hey man, I'll give you the spot but if you make one wrong move, this hand that you can't see is gonna come out blazin'!!!"

 

[JKTex]

Let's review, your exact words Dr. Commando.

"Nevertheless, I was damn glad I had it this w/e because it kept a dispute peaceable over a parking place I beat a guy out of -- and I never even had to show the weapon, just get halfway out of the car with my right arm still in it and hanging down out of sight, plus a "no fear" attitude on my part."

The it hero being a handgun you have concealed in your car.

And I assume you aren't saying that by imitating a monkey by leaving your arm hanging out of sight you kept him under control? Considering you started that thought with the fact that you never even had to show "the weapon" otherwise known as it.

Showing the weapon to instill fear in someone is brandishing. So by what you said, and what many have read, you were ready to "brandish" to control the killer Daddy if you had too. Nothing like jumping straight to a tool of last resort when beating people out of parking places. If you need to have a gun with you to address people in every day situations (and we don't know the entire story here either) you really are the anti-gun groups poster child of the video game commando the general public really should fear.

Now lets review the cause of this incident that as you claimed, would have taken their husband and daddy away. You beat him out of a parking place. He got out of the car, friendly and asking for a favor of letting them have the parking place as he had 2 small kids that need to go to the bathroom.

Ya, that's the kind of thing that brings out the dangerous killer animal in parents, especially the 20 something crazed muscle heads. No stereotype there huh?

Peace out. This has gotten boring but I think the underlying message, which is important, is pretty clear. Thanks for participating in this valuable public service message.

 

[Kerbouchard]

Showing a firearm with the intent to frighten or with the intent of showing that a person has lethal force available to him is NOT brandishing. It is a use of 'force', classified under the same exact thing as pushing, verbal threats or any other physical use of force.

The presentation of a firearm is justified if the actor was justified in using any amount of force. It is not even in the same classification as lethal force.

Not saying what he did was completely right, but it was not brandishing. If he was in fear of unlawful use of force against himself, he is justified in using force to prevent that...i.e. the presentation of a firearm.

 

[glockrocker]

So then what is brandishing? what defines the two? actually pointing and aiming at somebody?

 

[Kerbouchard]

The defining point is justified or not. If you are justified in using force, it is not brandishing. If you are waving your firearm around to create panic or fear, it's brandishing.

It's a fine line, and one that could definitely cost some money in court fees.

 

[crs2fer4]

Ya, it's a good thing brandishing is encouraged when trying to get a good parking place, but glad you didn't have to resort to it and just had to act like you were reaching for it because you know, he knew you had a gun and that changed his demeanor. If it weren't for firearms, I'd never get to park in the really good spots.

Ya I know, here I go again. But sometimes, it's just so easy.....

Wow, you sarcastic....id never have thunk it

 

[Kerbouchard]

Since I am sure I will be challenged and/or asked about it, here is the statute I am referring to.
Page 56 of http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/ftp/forms/ls-16.pdf

PC s9.04. THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. The threat of force
is justiied 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.​

​

 

[JKTex]

If you are waving your firearm around to create panic or fear, it's brandishing.

That's was how I was considering it as there would have been no other reason based on how the story was told.

I had to have some creative latitude.

 

[Kerbouchard]

Also, there is no 'brandishing' law, per se, in Texas. It falls under disorderly conduct, and only sections 4 and 8 even sort of apply to what happened in the story.

(4) abuses or threatens a person in a public place in an obviously
offensive manner;​

(8) displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a
manner calculated to alarm;​

As for number 4,

(b) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a)(4) that the
actor had significant provocation for his abusive or threatening
conduct.

And as for 8, the purpose is not calculated to 'alarm' but to defend oneself. That is also covered under the section of Threats as Justifiable Force as quoted earlier.​

 

[txinvestigator]

Showing a firearm with the intent to frighten or with the intent of showing that a person has lethal force available to him is NOT brandishing.

Since Texas has no "brandishing" law you are correct. But there is NO justification for displaying a firearm to "frighten" or show that letahal force is available.

The presentation of a firearm is justified if the actor was justified in using any amount of force.

That is not correct.

It is not even in the same classification as lethal force.

The term in Texas is "deadly force", and it would depend upon the circumstances.

If he was in fear of unlawful use of force against himself, he is justified in using force to prevent that...i.e. the presentation of a firearm.

Again, that entire concept is wrong. and Texas never allows any use of force if you are in fear.

Re-read section 9.04 of the penal code.

 

[txinvestigator]

Since I am sure I will be challenged and/or asked about it, here is the statute I am referring to.
Page 56 of http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/ftp/forms/ls-16.pdf

PC s9.04. THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. The threat of force
is justiied 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.​

​

​

​

[/left]
[/size][/font]

Notice that reads that the production of a weapon if you meet those standards IS NOT DEADLY FORCE. It never reads that you can display a weapon anytime you are justified in using ANY level of force.

The use of force laws include reasonable degrees of force, and 9.04 does not remove that requirement.

 

[Kerbouchard]

I didn't say that 9.04 removed that requirement. I said that if the use of force is justified, then the presentation of a weapon is justified under 9.04. That does not absolve the Use of Force Requirements. I did not quote the Use of Force requirements as they are easily accessible through DPS or more directly, the link I provided to the DPS PDF.

PC

99.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection

(b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the
degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary
to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of
unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately
necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable
if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom
the force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to
enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle,
or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to
remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation,
vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping,
murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery,
or aggravated robbery;
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used;
and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a
Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating
traffic at the time the force was used.​

Obviously, I do not know what kind of 'dispute' there was over the parking space, but if he reasonably believed the man was going to forcibly remove him from his vehicle, assault him, or damage his vehicle, he had the right to use force to stop him from doing so.​

Notice that reads that the production of a weapon if you meet those standards IS NOT DEADLY FORCE. It never reads that you can display a weapon anytime you are justified in using ANY level of force.

Yes it does...Back to 9.04, "... The threat of force is justified when the use of force is justified by this chapter."

​

 

[40Arpent]

Obviously, I do not know what kind of 'dispute' there was over the parking space...

Re-read his first post...it was a HUGE dispute that was about to turn EXTREMELY UGLY until the big ol' muscle-bound, 'roid-raged monster bad guy saw his arm still reaching inside the car, and knowing he must have a gun and would probably get shot and killed, the bad guy turned nice-nice and politely asked him for the parking space!!! SAVED BY THE GUN!!! WHEW, that was a close one!!!
​

 

[Kerbouchard]

Your sarcasm knows no bounds...

I didn't say his response was perfect, but then again, I wouldn't have had need to keep my hand in my car to conceal a gun. A holster does pretty well on that part.

None of us were there, and it just annoyed me at the overwhelmingly negative response he got.

There are a lot of factors that could play into what the perfect response is, but when it comes down to it, a family man who needed the spot got the spot and everybody made it home alright. It doesn't get a whole lot better than that.

 

[txinvestigator]

I didn't say that 9.04 removed that requirement. I said that if the use of force is justified, then the presentation of a weapon is justified under 9.04.

That is NOT what 9.04 means. The presentation of the weapn must be reasonable AND only to create the aprehension that deadly force will be used if necessary. In that situation your producsion of a weapon is not deadly force. Nowhere does 9.04 read that it is automatically justified.

That is not a Carte Blanche to draw down whenever you fele threatened or to intimdate a person from who the use of force might be justified.

 

[Kerbouchard]

We'll try this one more time, then I believe I am done with this thread. I would assume all of us can read and have some level of reading comprehension.

PC s9.04. 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.

No, it does not say you can willy nilly draw your weapon any time you want to. It says that when the use of force is justified under that chapter, that drawing and presenting your weapon with the intention of creating apprehension that deadly force will be used if necessary is justified under the use of force sections of the chapter.

I guess it all depends on what the definition of 'is' is...either way, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.