Brandishing Firearms

I'm wondering if these people who brandished firearms near protesters, have broken the law?

My understanding is that this is illegal, a gun should only be drawn if there is an imminent threat to your life, I think this is the case too in Arizona which has the least restrictive gun laws in the US.

Here's some info about these laws in Missouri.



Looks to me like these dummies did indeed violate that third rule above.

Sherlock Holmes said:

I'm wondering if these people who brandished firearms near protesters, have broken the law?

My understanding is that this is illegal, a gun should only be drawn if there is an imminent threat to your life, I think this is the case too in Arizona which has the least restrictive gun laws in the US.

Click to expand...

My understanding is that the protestors had bust through the gates and were walking down the people's driveway, not just passing by on a public sidewalk. In that case, my guess is it is perfectly legal.

Yeah, aiming a gun at a crowd of people isn't a good idea.

The moment you've aimed it, someone could shoot you dead and claim self defense.

Or you could accidentally squeeze the trigger and kill someone you didn't want to. It happens all the time.

Drawdown said:

My understanding is that the protestors had bust through the gates and were walking down the people's driveway, not just passing by on a public sidewalk. In that case, my guess is it is perfectly legal.

Click to expand...

If that's true, damn right that couple has the right to defend themselves!

Otherwise, if the protesters are on a public thorough-way I believe brandishing would occur when he points the gun at them. You generally can't point guns at people, unless defending yourself. If it's not legit self-defense, you're brandishing.

Sherlock Holmes said:

I'm wondering if these people who brandished firearms near protesters, have broken the law?

My understanding is that this is illegal, a gun should only be drawn if there is an imminent threat to your life, I think this is the case too in Arizona which has the least restrictive gun laws in the US.

Here's some info about these laws in Missouri.

View attachment 67285678

Looks to me like these dummies did indeed violate that third rule above.

Click to expand...

Those were trespassers on private property and presenting clear and present danger. They were lucky those people were restrained.

Chomsky said:

If that's true, damn right that couple has the right to defend themselves!

Otherwise, if the protesters are on a public thorough-way I believe brandishing would occur when he points the gun at them. You generally can't point guns at people, unless defending yourself. If it's not legit self-defense, you're brandishing.

Click to expand...

It was private property that was posted as such.

Chomsky said:

If that's true, damn right that couple has the right to defend themselves!

Otherwise, if the protesters are on a public thorough-way I believe brandishing would occur when he points the gun at them. You generally can't point guns at people, unless defending yourself. If it's not legit self-defense, you're brandishing.

Click to expand...

Even brandishing in self-defense can be legally problematic. As backward as it sounds, self-defense laws favor those who shoot and kill an assailant who doesn't even know they are armed over those who brandish a firearm to threaten a potential assailant to back off, leaving him alive to press charges.

lwf said:

Even brandishing in self-defense can be legally problematic. As backward as it sounds, self-defense laws favor those who shoot and kill an assailant who doesn't even know they are armed over those who brandish a firearm to threaten a potential assailant to back off, leaving him alive to press charges.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm aware. I was just trying to simplify the condept in general terms.

Chomsky said:

If that's true, damn right that couple has the right to defend themselves!

Otherwise, if the protesters are on a public thorough-way I believe brandishing would occur when he points the gun at them. You generally can't point guns at people, unless defending yourself. If it's not legit self-defense, you're brandishing.

Click to expand...

Generally I agree with the idea what this couple did was foolish, maybe illegal in some sense, but since wild tribes of uncivilized people are broadly being allowed to destroy property, block roads, and topple statues I don’t really care.

It’s a bad idea to brandish a gun to unarmed people though, because If an uncivilized savage decides to try you and test you then you either end up shooting an unarmed person or need to runaway anyway

Sherlock Holmes said:

I'm wondering if these people who brandished firearms near protesters, have broken the law?

My understanding is that this is illegal, a gun should only be drawn if there is an imminent threat to your life, I think this is the case too in Arizona which has the least restrictive gun laws in the US.

Here's some info about these laws in Missouri.

View attachment 67285678

Looks to me like these dummies did indeed violate that third rule above.

Click to expand...

Bigger question, should crowds of the most uncivilized of the third estate be allowed to even press charges considering their cause is a subversive one?

Drawdown said:

My understanding is that the protestors had bust through the gates and were walking down the people's driveway, not just passing by on a public sidewalk. In that case, my guess is it is perfectly legal.

Click to expand...

It's legal to kill people who you disagree with and who present no threat to your life ?

Its amazing the number of leftists that have **** themselves over a couple protecting their property, while those same leftists yawn at the 'peaceful protesters' that have been destroying public property, looting homes and businesses, and setting **** on fire.

VanceMack said:

Its amazing the number of leftists that have **** themselves over a couple protecting their property, while those same leftists yawn at the 'peaceful protesters' that have been destroying public property, looting homes and businesses, and setting **** on fire.

Click to expand...

You mean s**t themselves ?

Man brandishing an AR-15 and woman pointing a hand gun:


St. Louis couple point firearms at protesters outside home marching to demand mayor's resignation | Daily Mail Online

Sherlock Holmes said:

I'm wondering if these people who brandished firearms near protesters, have broken the law?

My understanding is that this is illegal, a gun should only be drawn if there is an imminent threat to your life, I think this is the case too in Arizona which has the least restrictive gun laws in the US.

Here's some info about these laws in Missouri.

View attachment 67285678

Looks to me like these dummies did indeed violate that third rule above.

Click to expand...

There is a difference between brandishing a weapon and defensive display of a weapon, and the situation/intent play a role in that outcome. The guy certainly didn't use good muzzle discipline, but we don't know the specifics of what led up to this incident. Were they threatened/rushed or placed in situation to fear for their lives? Did they run outside, armed, simply because of the existence of protesters?

What occurred (and why) to drive the decision to take a firearm outside?

lwf said:

Even brandishing in self-defense can be legally problematic. As backward as it sounds, self-defense laws favor those who shoot and kill an assailant who doesn't even know they are armed over those who brandish a firearm to threaten a potential assailant to back off, leaving him alive to press charges.

Click to expand...

It really depends on state law .. some states allow the defensive display of a firearm if a person believes physical force is necessary to protect himself against use/attempted use of elicit physical and/or deadly force.

Rich2018 said:

It's legal to kill people who you disagree with and who present no threat to your life ?

Click to expand...

nobody was killed and breaking through a gate and trespassing on people's property are crimes, not political disagreements.

Sherlock Holmes said:

I'm wondering if these people who brandished firearms near protesters, have broken the law?

My understanding is that this is illegal, a gun should only be drawn if there is an imminent threat to your life, I think this is the case too in Arizona which has the least restrictive gun laws in the US.

Here's some info about these laws in Missouri.

View attachment 67285678

Looks to me like these dummies did indeed violate that third rule above.

Click to expand...

No, they did not violate the law because those were not protesters. They were violent rioters and everyone has the right to self-defense.

You obviously need to learn the difference between a protestor and a rioter. A protestor always abides by the law and is always peaceful. If they are neither, then they are rioters and not protesters, and rioters need to be put down with force.

jotathought said:

It really depends on state law .. some states allow the defensive display of a firearm if a person believes physical force is necessary to protect himself against use/attempted use of elicit physical and/or deadly force.

Click to expand...

That's not a good idea, legally speaking. It is a "prove your innocence" scenario just as much as use of deadly force is. You have to prove that you were in legitimate fear for your life. A defensive display creates a situation where the "victim" can tell his side of the story, and the victim's lawyer could actually use the defensive display to argue that you weren't truly in fear for your life if you had the time and presence of mind to warn off an attacker. It sounds frivolous, but I've seen worse cases of criminals successfully suing victims.

Any way you slice it: If you are truly in legitimate imminent fear for your life from an attacker and you are armed, you should be using that weapon on your attacker with extreme prejudice until he is no longer a threat. Defensive displays are a bad idea if you do not have the legal protections of law enforcement. For that matter, advertising that you are armed in general is a bad idea.

In many jurisdictions "brandishing" a deadly weapon requires the following circumstances:

Rude, angry, and threatening manner.

A defense to this charge would be if the brandishing was in self defense, was not threatening, or was not a deadly weapon. Merely holding a firearem on your own property would not be a violation, but you have to be really careful about anything you say while doing so since a jury will decide if your comments or tone were less about defending yourself or you property or threatening otherwise non criminal behavior.

So a person shows up in front of your house with a protest sign and without any other circumstances to suggest foul play or a threat to you or your property and you go outside a point a gun, or threaten to use the gun, or say ANYTHING RUDE or ill advised while holding a gun..... well, you may have broken the law. Even merely pulling a gun out of your holster and pointed to it as if to suggest you will use it when there is no threat to you would be brandishing.

Brandishing is a dumb thing to do because you never know if the other person is an off duty cop or another person authorized to carry a weapon. So as soon as your display may be interpreted as a threat them a lot of bad things can happen to you.

This would NOT be considered brandishing, this photo from the Rodney King riots. The business owners here were armed in order to defend themselves from threats occurring around them. Self defense is ALWAYS a legitimate reason to have the presence of a firearm, either concealed or in clear view.

Drawdown said:

nobody was killed and breaking through a gate and trespassing on people's property are crimes, not political disagreements.

Click to expand...

That's not the point, the point is that the homeowner (AR-15) and his wife (handgun) had no threat to their lives and therefore had no right to brandish guns.

lwf said:

That's not a good idea, legally speaking. It is a "prove your innocence" scenario just as much as use of deadly force is. You have to prove that you were in legitimate fear for your life. A defensive display creates a situation where the "victim" can tell his side of the story, and the victim's lawyer could actually use the defensive display to argue that you weren't truly in fear for your life if you had the time and presence of mind to warn off an attacker. It sounds frivolous, but I've seen worse cases of criminals successfully suing victims.

Any way you slice it: If you are truly in legitimate imminent fear for your life from an attacker and you are armed, you should be using that weapon on your attacker with extreme prejudice until he is no longer a threat. Defensive displays are a bad idea if you do not have the legal protections of law enforcement. For that matter, advertising that you are armed in general is a bad idea.

Click to expand...

Sounds like we are on the same brainwave .. and I absolutely agree with the bolded part. I prefer people to not know if I'm armed, and the very reason the Michigan State Capitol shenanigan, while legal, didn't communicate the right message.

Like I said in a diffrent post on this topic. I need to see more information before I can determine if this family was justified in their actions or not.

Often times in cases with an edited video as more information and longer segments are produced the first impression doesn't always hold up.

Ultimately it doesn't matter what our opinions are it is up the whatever localitie to make that determination.

Sherlock Holmes said:

I'm wondering if these people who brandished firearms near protesters, have broken the law?

My understanding is that this is illegal, a gun should only be drawn if there is an imminent threat to your life, I think this is the case too in Arizona which has the least restrictive gun laws in the US.

Here's some info about these laws in Missouri.

View attachment 67285678

Looks to me like these dummies did indeed violate that third rule above.

Click to expand...

Indeed, under state law, these people unlawfully displayed and brandished firearms in a way that would naturally put others under threat.

Chillfolks said:

Like I said in a diffrent post on this topic. I need to see more information before I can determine if this family was justified in their actions or not.

Often times in cases with an edited video as more information and longer segments are produced the first impression doesn't always hold up.

Ultimately it doesn't matter what our opinions are it is up the whatever localitie to make that determination.

Click to expand...

Couple pointed guns at BLM protesters as they 'feared for lives' | Daily Mail Online

If the Democrat-backed BLM or ANTIFA terrorist organizations came on to my property and refused to leave when so ordered, I would do much more than just point a firearm. I am more than prepared to use it to defend my life and property. This couple showed remarkable constraint. A level of constraint that I would not have reciprocated if in a similar situation.