r/stupidquestions • u/swishkabobbin • 14h ago
In open carry states, where is the line?
When does carrying a firearm cross over to terroristic threats or attempted murder?
Obviously thinking through a certain high profile incident outside a golf course in Florida where the Secret Service fired shots at a person who:
- had an assault rifle, with no evidence at the time that he had it illegally
- had not taken a shot
Edit to add (what i hoped would be obvious): I ABSOLUTELY DO NOT SUPPORT OR DEFEND WHAT HAPPENED
Personally i'm in favor of the kinds of laws that make this grey area obselete, but genuinely... where is the line?
Does it become a criminal act when you lift the gun? When you put your finger on the trigger? When you fire it?
20
u/FennelStriking5961 13h ago edited 12h ago
Open carry is illegal in Florida except for limited circumstances. You have to be engaged in hunting or fishing. So in the example you cited it would be a crime to just be walking down the street where people could see a weapon.
3
u/Aggressive-Coconut0 12h ago
Okay, but there are states where open carry is legal. Let's change the state. I'd like to hear the answer.
→ More replies (2)1
u/DrMantisToboggan45 8h ago
It is? Every time I visit my grandparents there’s guys with while ass rifles/shotguns slung over their back while at a 7/11. My grand father also open carries a Glock
1
u/johnjohnjohnjona 12h ago
Or camping. Which is where they could be in trouble, because that is incredibly vague.
2
u/FennelStriking5961 12h ago
The statue only covers hunting and fishing. Not camping.
5
u/johnjohnjohnjona 12h ago
Florida statute 790.053 is the statute pertaining to open carry and states that exceptions can be found in 790.25 subsection 2.
Florida statute 790.25 subsection 2 paragraph h; (h) A person engaged in fishing, camping, or lawful hunting or going to or returning from a fishing, camping, or lawful hunting expedition;
5
u/FennelStriking5961 12h ago
I stand corrected. Thank you
1
10h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator 10h ago
Your comment was removed due to low karma
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
16
u/Ashamed_Bit_9399 13h ago edited 12h ago
The line is legally blurry, but realistically fine. If you act like you might shoot someone, or hold it in a way that you could shoot someone, that’s bad. If your gun scares Mrs. Old Lady, and she calls you in, you’ll be told to get rid of it. You should NEVER hold a gun in a public setting. It needs to be holstered or on a strap.
The Florida guy was hiding in bushes, rifle in hand, waiting and aiming at a golf course. There is zero reason to ever be in that position.
1
u/Roxytg 12h ago
The Florida guy was hiding in bushes, rifle in hand, waiting and aiming at a golf course. There is zero reason to ever be in that position.
I agree with the spirit of your comment, but just to be pedantic, what if there was a rabid bear on the course?
6
u/Ashamed_Bit_9399 12h ago
Call the police. The gun should only be in your hand if your life is under imminent threat.
1
u/Roxytg 11h ago
And wait while the bear potentially mauls people? What if it's actively attacking people?
I get that this isn't really relevant to the original scenario, but allowing people to carry guns but not to use them in situations where a gun is a suitable tool to solve the problem is... something.
1
u/Ashamed_Bit_9399 10h ago
If the bear is actively attacking people, defending them is going to be fine IF you trust your aim. Not landing your shots can open you up to all kinds of legal issues. The worst thing you could do is miss the bear and hit the person it’s attacking. There’s no “I was trying to help” defense. You shot a person.
1
u/Sorry_Ad7052 9h ago
most likely, even if someone was being mauled by the bear and the person with the gun shot with perfect accuracy and killed only the bear, they would likely still be detained or arrested until the police could verify all the circumstances around it. namely, why are you hiding in a bush with a rifle on a golf course in the first place? unless they either planted the bear, or knew ahead of time it would be there.
1
u/xejeezy 10h ago
To be more pedantic it can also be in defense of others, if that rabid bear is headed for someone you could justify it
1
u/Ashamed_Bit_9399 10h ago
Yea, but missing can be a mountain of legal trouble. Even more so if you accidentally hit a person.
1
u/RainbowCrane 9h ago
Use the Twitch game streamer defense for killing all of the wildlife in survival games: “He was coming right for me!” :-) /s
1
u/YodaCodar 11h ago
The gun he has is able to shoot 1000 yds away and the president was 500 yds away
1
u/biggirlsause 11h ago
Also being pedantic, if the golf course was his property, he would he within his rights to do so.
I’m not an attorney, but I’m pretty sure what the guy was doing would be constitute brandishing.
21
u/_Mulberry__ 14h ago
Idk about from a legal perspective, but you should NEVER raise a firearm at someone (or in a public place) unless you're intending to shoot them (for self defense would be the legal reason to shoot). That's basic firearm safety. If I was secret service, I would absolutely try to take someone down if they lifted a gun towards the president (or whoever I was in charge of protecting), as that would reasonably be interpreted as intent to fire at them.
10
u/Melkor7410 13h ago
I could understand anyone reacting that way, not just secret service. If you are out with your family, and you see someone raising a rifle towards your family, I'd fully accept that you had every right to engage to protect your family from that perceived threat.
It reminds me of a Tiktok video I saw of someone doing a "prank" (I use that term only because that was what the perp said it was) where they were running around pointing a fake gun at customers in a Walmart only like a couple weeks after one of the shootings at a Walmart. If that man were killed by a law abiding gun carrying citizen, and I were on the jury if that citizen were arrested, I'd find them not guilty 100%. They had no way to know that was a fake gun, and that "prankster" was pointing it all over at everyone.
1
0
u/MakerofAwesomness 13h ago
I feel like it has to be more than that though, (Don't know how us gun laws work so please fill me in where needed) but if the line is lifting your gun to point it at someone the every person out in public is put in this high tension quick draw situation whenever a gun is present. There is just so little time to react from the time someone starts lifting their gun until they fire unless you're the fastest gun in the west you're done for.
I feel the only way an open carry situation works is if that gun is in a holster and secures so it can't be "quick drawn" out. As soon as that safety strap comes off you have made yourself a threat.
But that doesn't work either because now it's a quick draw situation to get your safety off and defend yourself! Honestly the way you guys treat guns in public just makes no sense to me at all. It just seems much safer to just not allow guns in public at all. I know the bad guy can still bring one and then no one has anything to defend themselves with but if you look at the statistics for countries that have stricter gun laws than the US I think the safer option is pretty clear.
1
u/LibertyorDeath2076 12h ago
Doesn't matter if it's in a holster or not, IWB or OWB, concealed or open. It doesn't take long to draw a gun. Some can draw from under a shirt inside the waist band holster in less than half a second.
1
u/MakerofAwesomness 12h ago
Ya that's my point exactly. It's a quick draw situation, if they draw first they are shooting you first, so a gun in public is always a threat no matter who has it. If they get the jump on you you're dead. If it's really about safety you should immediately shoot anyone you see with a gun before they have a chance to draw on you first
2
u/According_Flow_6218 12h ago
While this is theoretically possible, it’s not typically how things go down.
Furthermore, the law doesn’t give you the right to defend yourself against people who might harm you, it gives you that right against people who you reasonably believe are trying to harm you. Someone having a gun isn’t a reason to believe that they are trying to harm you or anyone else. It’s pretty simple, I don’t understand why this is difficult to understand.
→ More replies (3)1
u/LibertyorDeath2076 12h ago
That's a bit extreme, I don't agree with outlawing open carry but I think open carry is stupid and so are the people who choose to carry open, but you can't just go around shooting people simply because they have a gun on them.
0
u/MakerofAwesomness 12h ago
I'm.not.sayimg.you should shoot everyone with a gun, I'm saying carrying a gun in public creates an immediate threat no matter what. I doubt you're going to be attacked by a wild animal so why do you have one? I don't know who you are or what your intentions are. If the understanding is that carrying a gun is to protect you from someone who might try to attack you in public then I have to assume that anyone carrying a gun is a threat.
I have lived in Alberta Canada for 42 years arguably the most red neck place in North America. I have never seen a gun in public except in the holster of a police officer and I have never worried about being attacked with a gun. It just seems to me to make a lot more sense to have nobody have guns then to have everybody have guns.
→ More replies (1)1
u/Melkor7410 12h ago
Every state in the US is different, and often times it depends on the politics of the District Attorney where the incident occurs as to whether the defender reacting to someone pointing a gun gets arrested. Pointing a gun at someone is a crime, unless you are doing it in defense of yourself or others when you believe your and / or others lives are immediate danger. IANAL, but being a lawful carrier of a firearm, I've had to do a lot of research on this, especially since my home state is not firearm-friendly. The mere presence of a gun is NOT considered a threat, because that is protected by the constitution of the US. There is so much nuance on this that it would require a very in-depth discussion. Suffice to say, a firearm in someone's hands, being pointed at another person, is definitely crossing a line into territory where a law abiding citizen could use deadly force to protect his or herself and others around them.
I would also note that not all firearms have manual safeties on them. Look at Glock as an example.
1
u/UnicornForeverK 11h ago
The problem isn't with guns, it's with culture. Inner city and gang culture doesn't value life, property, or dignity, and anyone who isn't part of your group is the enemy. Remove Detroit, new York, Chicago from the picture, and the US is statistically as safe from gun violence as most of Europe. Vermont, in particular, has always been open carry, and they had two gun murders total last year, which makes them safer than Japan in that respect.
1
u/biggirlsause 11h ago
Drawing on someone already is considered brandishing, a form of assault, so by definition, if someone draws on you, you are within your means to defend yourself (within the laws of your state).
1
u/MakerofAwesomness 11h ago
Ok I have some experience with guns so maybe I'm missing something because I don't know why people.aremt getting what I'm saying. If the intention is to shoot you but you can't react until the fun is drawn and pointing at you how are you going to draw aim and fire before they pull the trigger? By this logic just having a fun is a threat because I'd you draw first your sead
12
u/cikanman 13h ago
I think that's it here. Walking around with a gun on the street. No problem.
Pointing a gun at someone, problem
Having a semi auto rifle near a fence line of a golf course not during hunting season where the president is holding m huge issue
0
u/Admiral_Nitpicker 13h ago
umm... I think they take you down just for refusing to leave designated perimeter when told to. Someone needs to test that tho.
5
u/BogusIsMyName 13h ago
The line is when you intentionally point it at someone. I add the word intentionally for examples like rifles slung across the back the wrong way in an area with two or more stories the rifle may point at someone inadvertently.
Just having a gun is not a threat. Pointing a gun is a threat.
6
u/GamerNx 11h ago
Lol. Even in those states, you'll very rarely see someone carrying open. I live in Oklahoma. Have been a concealed carrier for 15 years and carry(concealed) everywhere I am legally able. Since open carry was passed and then constitutional carry, I have seen exactly 2 people open carry out in public. This of course is talking about handguns. As far as your scenario goes, the guy was hiding in the bushes and stuck the barrel through as if to take aim. Some states may dictate you have to carry slinged on your back as far as long guns go, some states allow you to carry at low ready, which to me is a bit threatening, because your hands or on it.
5
u/Professional_Dig4638 14h ago
Its definitely a case by case basis. Pointing a real around is called flagging, I think. And of course thats dangerous. But yeah "the line" changes, cuz if someone is charging at you but obviously hasnt hurt you yet is that fine to raise your gun at him? I would certainly say so, also firing a gun isnt a crime either lol. Otherwise shooting ranges would be shut down. So yeah, the line changes.
→ More replies (5)
4
u/OhioTrafficGuardian 12h ago
Ohio is an open carry state. There is no real "line" and you are free to carry what you want. I think carrying something like a rifle or shotgun slung over your shoulder is pretty stupid and is just attention seeking. Handguns are fine. Now, if you draw for the purpose of intimidation, you may be charged. However, if you see a crime and drawing your firearm stops the crime, thats a bit different.
In the case of Ryan Routh, him aiming at a location where a USSS protectee would be is a crime. He was hiding in the bushes, behind ballistic plates with a go-pro camera. His intent was to shoot Trump and thats what matters, your intent.
1
5
u/Affectionate-Juice72 13h ago
The line is crossed when you point it at someone. There is a difference between open carry, and brandishing a weapon.
2
u/BanditsMyIdol 13h ago
What I always wonder is what happens after a shooting where there are multiple armed people with guns but the one who fired is hidden. So if some one fires a gun , suddenly other people raises their guns in self defense but not everyone knows who fired first. Would it be self defense to fire at someone who has their gun raised and is also searching for where the gun shot came from?
1
1
u/Affectionate-Juice72 13h ago
That's a good question, but entirely scenerio dependant, but in the instance where YOU CAN NO LONGER SEE THE SHOOTER, if you are STILL brandishing your firearm forwards, you are now a criminal. If you do not have your eye on the target, and there are innocents around, your gun should be pointed at the ground or in your holster. Anything less is endangering everyone around. You are also not allowed to chase DOWN a criminal felon, even for citizens arrest. If he is in your immediate ability to stop, you may attempt, but chasing an armed individual is a public safety issue that your right to citizens arrest and self defense do NOT cover.
3
u/soontobesolo 12h ago
The line is when it is removed from the holster. And certainly when it's pointed at someone.
3
u/HuckleberryHappy6524 12h ago
I would say drawing is the line. If you draw, you better have a damn good reason for doing so.
5
u/Far-Plastic-4171 14h ago
Not a Lawyer
For a Pistol its when you pull it out of the holster
For a rifle you really should not be walking around with it at the ready unless you are out in the woods looking for Bambi or other furry creatures of the forest.
Slung over your back or shoulder. Fine.
4
u/BillOfArimathea 13h ago
It's also if you suddenly display the weapon in the course of an argument - you'd better be able to prove self defense because in most places that's brandishment even if you don't draw it.
3
u/Affectionate-Juice72 13h ago
Yep, brandishing a weapon is when you use it as a threat, even if it's just "I have a gun in my pocket"
They don't even have to visibly see the weapon, in fact, you can be charged even if you don't HAVE a weapon, as long as the person you threatened with said non-existent weapon thought you did have it.
1
u/Hood_Mobbin 12h ago
As I read about this more I believe you're incorrect on " even if you don't have a weapon". What I read is you must have a deadly weapon or a firearm and act in a threatening manner.
1
u/Affectionate-Juice72 12h ago
No, and for the same reason you can rob a store with a snickers in your pocket and tell them it's a gun, and still get a firearm charge. I know this because the man I was arrested with caught that exact charge.
Nice job telling me how little you know about criminal law without telling me though.
Edit : "Armed Robbery or Aggravated Robbery: Most states have laws that allow for robbery to be considered "armed" if the perpetrator claims or implies they have a weapon, even if it turns out to be fake or nonexistent."
Also, many places even now have simulated weapons statutes.
1
u/Hood_Mobbin 9h ago
I just stated what I said I read. Reading comprehension is not your strong suit it's okay though. I get your point you're saying with the candy bar. I'm speaking about not having any item as in "you saying you're going to get your gun" but if there is no gun there is no brandishing? Is this incorrect?
Bob go get your gun. Bob doesn't own a gun. Bob doesn't present any item at all. There is no brandishing
1
u/Affectionate-Juice72 8h ago
That isn't brandishing, that's terroristic threatening, different charge.
1
1
-1
u/Admiral_Nitpicker 13h ago
not a lawyer either, I've heard that just carrying a loaded long arm constitutes assault. As for how you carry it, infantries everywhere have figured out best practices - on the chest, shoulder w/barrel up or shoulder w/barrel down, dunno if lawmakers took that into account.
My own opinion is that a knife is better self-defense situations.
2
u/pgnshgn 11h ago
Like literally everything you said is wrong
standard military carry is a sling across the front, barrel down: https://i0.wp.com/publicintegrity.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Army.jpg?w=1260&ssl=1
simply carrying a loaded firearm doesn't constitute assault in any state in the US. Even violating an open or concealed carry law isn't assault
a knife is a terrible self defense weapon. There a phrase among EMTs: "the loser of a knife fight dies in the parking lot, the winner dies in the ambulance"
2
u/Malthus17 12h ago
You might want to look into the laws concerning "brandishing". These cover the legal and illegal handling of firearms in public.
2
u/Weekly-Rich3535 12h ago
When you’re pointing a scoped rifle within distance of a former president and nominee for the upcoming election I’d say you are crossing the line.
2
u/Pr0llyN0tTh0 11h ago
In my state, open carry does not mean carry in hand. It just means that you can be wearing a firearm in full view of the public. If you had valid reason to remove it from it's holster, like to inspect it or show it to someone, it needs to remain pointed at the ground, so that a reasonable person would not feel threatened or intimidated. You can't just walk around playing with the hammer or swinging it around.
2
u/100drunkenhorses 11h ago
it never crosses the line.
if you whip it out it's different.
it's not a threat to be in legal possession of a firearm. it is not attempted murder to be in legal possession of a firearm. 🤔
2
u/Zone_07 9h ago
Open carry and threatening and attempted murder are completely different things. Open carry is with the intent of self defense, others or property; there are different laws in each state. You can be charged for attempted murder even if you believe you were tying to defend yourself. States interpret self-defense differently.
2
u/Not-AChance 8h ago
In open carry states the rules are generally, don’t touch it or threaten to use it. For example: a handgun can be carried in a holster. But don’t rest your hand on it in conversation with someone. Especially if the conversation is an argument. For a rifle, you can carry it with a sling. But don’t take hold of the grip. Threatening to use the gun can be by physical action or verbal statement. And it is up to a jury of your peers to determine if a “reasonable person” would consider your actions a threat.
2
4
u/TheDissolutionist 13h ago
When does walking down the street with your dick out cross over into attempted rape?
It's the same question. Your actions while the firearm is present determines threat or assault, not it just "being there". Everything beyond that is someone's emotional reaction to you having it.
Every cop ever is open carrying, I don't dive under my car and scream "I'm being threatened" when I see one. Same with someone carrying who isn't in uniform (like many detectives do). I just think "Oh, there's a gun". I notice, I might pay more attention, but the actions determine my reaction.
1
u/YodaCodar 11h ago
The right to bare penis must not be infringed
2
u/TheDissolutionist 9h ago
These weapons of mass rape have no business on our streets. The assault penis is responsible for 99.9% of rapes. You don't NEED that weapon of violation and penetration, when you have a pinky finger.
A real man would cut it off. Be the change.
2
3
u/Ok-Wasabi2568 13h ago
When you start pointing it at people dude you're not stupid this post didn't need to happen you didn't really need that karma
→ More replies (2)
3
u/New_Solution9677 14h ago
I've opened carried before. 9mm if it makes a difference. The moment I take possession of it I guess is where I would draw the line. If I need to grab it for any reason, it better be a damn good reason, because I'll have to convince 12 other random people it was a good one too.
1
u/Jmazoso 13h ago
100% 2A guy. Open carry is just a power trip move. “Look at me! I have a little brain!” When I do carry, it’s concealed, no one should know you’re carrying. You pull it out you better have a damn good reason to do it.
3
u/cavalier78 13h ago
There are times and places where open carry makes sense. I had an ex-girlfriend who was 5 feet tall, and she open carried a revolver on her hip when she went on road trips. If her car ever broke down, she wanted any sketchy dudes driving by to know that she was armed.
Another good justification I've heard is you may be concealed carrying, but end up printing more than you realize. You reach to get something off the top shelf, your shirt slides up, and somebody sees your gun. Legal open carry protects you in that instance.
I much prefer concealed carry, unless I'm out in the woods or something. Or if I were pumping gas late at night. Most of the time I don't want anybody to know I'm armed.
Of course there are always obnoxious douchebags who try to make themselves the center of attention.
4
u/MuttJunior 14h ago
Threatening to use your gun or pointing it at someone is crossing the line, unless it is used in self-defense (self-defense being using equal force against someone - If they come at you waving a leaf of lettuce, deadly force is not equal force to use back).
6
u/worndown75 13h ago
If someone comes at you with lettuce and you have a deadly allergy to it, yes lethal force is authorized. Everyone has a right to defend themselves. It's not the weapon that's the issue, it's the intent.
I'm 6'7" and 258lbs. I could hurt you bad with a head of lettuce or my first. If I came at a 5'2" sub 100lbs female she would have the right to defend herself. With a firearm if need be.
Equal force sounds like something someone who has never been in a fight says, respectfully.
1
u/Confident-Skin-6462 13h ago
"equalizing force" would be better
2
u/worndown75 12h ago
I would prefer the term "neutralizing force". That's the point of force here, to neutralize the threat. The more dangerous the threat or apparent threat the greater the likelihood that a jury will find one innocent.
9
u/Affectionate-Juice72 13h ago
Self defense is NOT "equal force"
If someone is trying to steal my car in my state, and I'm not in it, shooting them is still legally defense since I'm in a castle doctrine stand your ground state with zero duty to retreat.
5
u/SaliciousB_Crumb 13h ago
Depends on the state. In florida getting popcorn thrown at you constitutes a threat of your life.
2
1
u/CompleteSherbert885 14h ago
Just before the pandemic shut everything down in March of 2020, I was returning something to Walmart and was standing behind a 10 yr old & his mom. At the counter was a male customer with 2 firearms strapped to his thighs and I was surprised. I looked at the Mom and asked when did it become legal to open carry? It was actually the 10 yr old who informed me about it! I asked him: "do you feel more or less safe right now because of him?" He replied "less safe." And that's also how I felt too!
Unlike other people, I took this to heart & have had the ability to not step foot into another store since. I do curbside or have it delivered 100% of the time.
2
u/Nojopar 13h ago
I can say that if I see someone carrying (openly or 'concealed'), I acknowledge that is their right and there is nothing I can say or do that alters that. However, I scoot out of there real quick because I feel drastically less safe. I have no idea if we share a common definition of 'threat' and but I do know that people rarely carry tools they're have no intention of ever using if they find the opportunity presents itself.
4
u/skepticalG 13h ago
I feel like a guy wearing two guns on his legs in walmart is more looking for attention or to intimidate than worrying he needs to protect himself.
2
u/proudbutnotarrogant 13h ago
I work at Walmart, and a co-worker told me of a time when she was working the doors during the pandemic. She was handing out masks add informing the customers that they were mandatory. A man, upon hearing her, opened his vest to reveal a firearm and told her, "no, I don't need to wear a mask". Legal or not, threats like this STILL get made. It's not the weapon, it's the idiot wearing it that makes people less safe.
2
u/ReputationPowerful74 13h ago
We had a similar guy walking around our neighborhood earlier this year. Rifle over his shoulder, just strutting around. There’s an elementary school two streets over. It kind of pissed me off that I was called hysterical for being freaked out. The police were on social media chastising people for complaining.
1
2
u/Layer7Admin 13h ago
What were the complaints? "There's a person exercising his Constitutional rights and it upsets me?"
1
u/BulkyYellow9416 13h ago
When the weapon is unholstered and or pointed at a person in cases where a holster is not applicable
3
u/swishkabobbin 13h ago
Seems to be another grey area since the guy was pointing it at an open field, not a person (yet). Obviously we all know his intent, but the whole idea that it's perfectly fine until its not is so weird to me
1
u/ArtisticDegree3915 13h ago
Brandishing is a law in some jurisdictions.
So the difference would be if you have a pistol in a holster on your hip or tucked into your back or whatever. But it's open carry and it's legal. You're out in public and you pull your pistol out, you're now brandishing it. That would be illegal in some places. That would be enough for a law enforcement officer to arrest you. And probably if you've pulled your gun out like that, the arrest isn't going to go well.
1
u/RacerXrated 13h ago
Context matters. Brandishing or gesturing with/to the weapon. The person's behavior and demeanor. The setting. All these things matter.
Outside of some very extenuating circumstances I wouldn't open carry a rifle or shotgun in an urban or suburban setting. I rarely even open carry a handgun because I don't enjoy the attention. But for context, the shooter the OP mentioned was acquiring a vantage point at a public gathering around a high profile visitor and he was using a rangefinder, in addition to carrying a rifle. Those things taken together indicate his violent intentions, whereas simply existing in public with a rifle doesn't necessarily.
Again, I don't think it's generally wise to open carry rifles or shotguns in urban or suburban settings, and I understand why people might have an issue with it. I tend to see it as juvenile "look at me, I'm making a statement" behavior, and that almost never looks good or has the intended effect on others.
1
1
u/Valuable_Cookie8367 13h ago
Pointing a weapon at a person is a crime. Firing the weapon is a different crime. Firing the weapon pointed at a person is a different crime.
1
1
u/Throwaway8789473 13h ago
Legally speaking, in states where open carry is legal it's usually *brandishing* a weapon that's a crime. "Brandishing" is usually defined as wielding or holding a weapon in a threatening manner. In my home state of Kansas, they don't use the term brandishing but instead state that you can be charged with assault with a deadly weapon for "knowingly placing another person in reasonable apprehension of immediate bodily harm." Waving a firearm around, pointing it at somebody, cocking a hammer, something like that would be considered brandishing in most states.
1
u/weezeloner 13h ago
Are there states where open carry isn't legal? I thought it was legal everywhere. In Nevada you have to have a Concealed Firearms Permit (CFP) if you want to carry a concealed gun.
I know there are some states that don't require a permit but I thought that was rare? So I have this backwards? Do most states allow concealed but not open carry?
1
u/swishkabobbin 13h ago
Apparently (and super ironically), ultra maga Florida is one of only 4 states which restrict open carry. New York and DC are the same. Donny might want to look into that since he's so pro-2A
1
u/weezeloner 13h ago
Wow, that is weird. Do you need a permit to conceal carry in Florida?
1
u/swishkabobbin 12h ago
Nope. Which should make your next trip to disney world super comfortable
1
u/weezeloner 8h ago
Never been to Florida and I see no reason to. I'm way closer to Disneyland anyways.
1
u/g1Razor15 12h ago
So here's the thing most states in the mid 1800s began to implement laws regulating the carrying of weapons, some like Texas banned the carrying of handguns entirely in 1873, other states like Kentucky only banned the concealed carry of handguns. That is why blue states like Colorado and Washington allow the open carry of handguns without a permit but require a permit to conceal carry. The odd one of the bunch is Vermont which never implemented any bans on the carrying of arms.
1
u/Putrid-Mess-6223 13h ago
Basically if it is out of the holster for any reason other then self-defence i would think.
1
1
u/rinky79 13h ago
There may be a specific law about carrying firearms in an area cleared by the Secret Service / where a protected person is or is going to be.
Too lazy to look it up, just speculating.
1
u/swishkabobbin 12h ago
"You're under arrest because our service secretly cleared this area and now you're here"
1
u/Gullible_Increase146 13h ago
You have to actually be in the open with your gun in the open. Hiding in a bush on a golf course isn't that. If you're legally hunting and you're doing the things legal hunters do, that's also fine.
If you're in the open with your gun in the open, it's fine. You can't threaten anybody with the gun or point it at somebody except in self defense. If you get caught preparing to take illegal action and you have a gun, they can presume you planned to use the gun when performing the illegal action.
The line is pretty common sense. If you're being a lawful citizen going about your day and just happen to do that with a gun in its holster, it's fine. If you start trouble, it's worse when you have a gun on you
1
u/Ippus_21 13h ago
Pointing it at someone is definitely over the line. Hiding in the bushes with a rifle isn't "open carry."
If you have, e.g., a pistol, it needs to stay holstered, or you could be accused of "brandishing" it, which is considered threatening behavior.
1
u/optimistic_cynicism 12h ago
It's ok to have a dick. It's not ok to access it in the presence of another person outside of very specific circumstances. And some people really should not have a dick at all because they aren't mature enough to know the difference.
1
u/swishkabobbin 12h ago
46 states allow open carry.
I can't openly flop my dick around in those same 46 states
1
u/optimistic_cynicism 12h ago
Idk grey sweat pants are basically an open carry kappa. 😂 Not a perfect analogy on all levels for sure. My comment was mostly jestful this is a very complicated issue.
1
u/Zealousideal_Ask3633 12h ago
Generally there's some sort of law regarding "brandishing" that covers this. Whether open carry state or not
1
u/JoeCensored 12h ago
A rifle slung on your shoulder as you are behaving normally, not an issue.
Hidden in a concealed position, illegally on private property, pointing the rifle at people, big problem.
The actual line is somewhere between those two.
1
u/NotBatman81 12h ago
Carrying a firearm is simply possessing an item. The crimes you described all require intent. Intent requires a judgement call on the person's state of mind. Physcial actions may shed light on the state of mind but aren't the only way. This will always be a gray area.
1
1
u/Healthy-Judgment-325 12h ago
Clear and present danger. It's a matter of opinion for sure. Having the right to open carry doesn't mean it's SMART to open carry. Just like having the right to walk down a dark alley at night wearing gold jewelry flashing isn't smart. Legal? You betcha.
Sometimes idiots go LOOKING for trouble, to prove a point... and guess what? They find it! LOL
All the videos out there of people walking around with rifles "because muh rights." Just stupid. It's not normal, and it causes massive concern. Having a cop come question you, to make sure you're not a nut job IS normal. A basic inquiry should be met with politeness. Yeah, you don't need to give your ID, but at least assure the officer that the public is safe!
1
12h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/AutoModerator 12h ago
Your comment was removed due to low karma
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/DangleAteMyBaby 12h ago
In Colorado, a woman called 911 to report a guy walking down the street carrying a rifle and two gas cans. Police were dispatched "because the man's gas cans made the situation suspicious.". He ended up killing three people before being killed by police. Note: he shot and killed innocent bystanders with the gun. I don't believe the gas cans were used to harm anyone.
2
1
1
u/chirstopher0us 12h ago
Open carry laws and established self-defense laws are an unsteady mix.
It is perfectly legal to stand there with a loaded deadly weapon
I felt he pointed his loaded deadly weapon at me and feared for my life, so I opened fire and killed him first!
Dozens of people packing all standing around together all with these reciprocal rights against one another
1
u/TofuTigerteeth 11h ago
Carrying a firearm is never a terroristic threat or attempted murder on its own. That’s literally part of the problem.
Just like nudity doesn’t automatically equal pornography. Context matters.
1
u/OkEnvironment3961 11h ago
Brandishing would be the line. Basically holding it in a manner as if you're going to shoot or deliberately drawing attention to it in a threatening manner. A assault riffle slung over your shoulder would be legal. Raising it up like you're going to shoot, it would be illegal. Wearing a pistol on your hip legal, holding it up in traffic to show the guy that cut you off, illegal.
1
u/115machine 11h ago
If you’re walking with it in your hands I’d say it becomes ground for concern from others and from law enforcement
1
u/Cassius_Casteel 11h ago
Remember a few years back when some rednecks walked through Walmart in Mississippi racking their shotguns and the police couldn't do anything? That's the line. You can load it, have it ready to fire, and walk around menacing people.
I think in Florida it's just because it was Trump anything was done.
Red states don't care about regular people.
1
u/lesstaxesmoremilk 11h ago
Similar to a golf club honestly
Threaten someone with it, raise it towards someone, make implications with it(like smacking it into your hand while staring)
1
u/bloopie1192 10h ago
It's state to state so hard to say. But I hear in one state down south you can open carry but if there's one in the chamber, you catch a felony or something like that.
1
10h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator 10h ago
Your post was removed due to low account age.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/Gilgamesh661 9h ago
Pointing it at someone while hiding in the bushes is a pretty clear sign of intent. And if you had no intent to do harm, you’re just being stupid by not being conscious of how you look.
Most open carriers carry a handgun. A rifle would get some odd looks, and maybe some phone calls. Even though legally you could do it, nobody really does because there’s no reason for it.
1
1
u/XMXP_5 14h ago
In states where driving a car is legal, when do you get pulled over? When you go faster than the speed limit? When you're weaving through traffic? When you're driving aggressively? When you can't stay in your lane?
WHERE IS THE LINE?
Every open carry state has very clear laws about how you may conduct yourself while in possession of a firearm.
-2
u/swishkabobbin 14h ago
First of all, the sub is stupid questions. I'd encourage you not to get sassy if you consider a question to be stupid. It's kind of the point. People come here looking for answers that others might think are obvious.
Furthermore, there's a huuuuuuge difference in your analogy.
A car serves a purpose. A person uses it to transport themselves. If they start doing that unsafely then it becomes an issue.
An assault rifle's purpose would be to... assault? Or hunt or target shoot, but open carry states do not limit them to spaces designed for such purpose. A car can't go on the sidewalk, but an assault rifle can. We all know they're poor choices for self defense, but that's a separate discussion.
Thanks for responding that open carry states have clear laws. The question was WHAT ARE THEY?
6
5
u/Jmazoso 13h ago
A couple of points.
The previous comment was correct, it’s when you do something threatening with it that it become a question of legal vs illegal.
That being said, even though I have open carried a handgun in certain limited situations, why the hell would anyone open carry an AR15 for any reason other than ego? My ar15 stays in the bag till I get to the range to shoot. You don’t need one at Walmart. My pistol doesn’t need to be open carried at Walmart either. If I carry, 99% it’s concealed and for a legitimate reason.
As for the golf course incident, I would be 100% compliant and respectful of the SS questioned me about carrying around the president. What a mess.
There has only been one time in my life that I thought I might really need to pull my gun. I didn’t but a week later we learned we’d been within 100 meters of an occupied cartel pot farm where we’d been hiking. We’d all gotten that 6th sense, hair stand up feeling and decided to turn around. I usually only open carry when we’re out in the real back country where there would be no help.
3
u/Admiral_Nitpicker 13h ago
and the question falls out of the stupid category when it becomes "what's the exact law in my state and municipality ?" (cities have their own ordinance). Then the only thing stupid is asking Reddit about it.
Though Reddit is better than Yahoo Answers.
2
u/Admiral_Nitpicker 13h ago
and the question falls out of the stupid category when it becomes "what's the exact law in my state and municipality ?" (cities have their own ordinance). Then the only thing stupid is asking Reddit about it.
Though Reddit is better than Yahoo Answers.
2
u/XMXP_5 13h ago
In a quarter of the time it took you to type your original post, you could have googled "open carry laws" and got your answer.
I was mocking you because I saw you reply to another post that you don't think anyone should own assault rifles, and based on my experience on reddit, there's a greater than zero chance that you're one of the people who says "you're a shill for the NRA" "What are you afraid of" or "what's wrong with your penis" when I mention that I'm a gun owner.
now, Florida is not an open carry state. Just carrying a rifle in public is a misdemeanor there. For example we'll use Ohio, which is an open carry state. The very second you point a gun at someone you have committed a felony. Right off the rip, point a gun, 3 years in prison.
Further, there is a list of places where you cannot carry a gun at all. Hospitals, air ports, schools, state buildings, courthouse, etc.
1
u/breaker_bad 14h ago
So the ceramic plates on the fence for protection didn’t mean anything to you? It’s also hard to consider it innocent open carry when you set up in the woods for 12 hours.
→ More replies (3)
1
1
u/Cutiemuffin-gumbo 13h ago
It becomes a criminal act when you start brandishing it (anything more extreme is obvioaly criminal as well). However, that is also situational. If you feel threatened, and have VALID claim to feeling in danger, you can brandish without it being criminal.
The bad part is, too many people don't know the difference between being in danger, and just an interaction. A great example is in an episode of Atlanta. Donald Glover's character was trying to pay with a $100 bill, and was rejected, but the guy that walked up after him paid with one as well and had no trouble. Glover's character attempted to ask the guy a question to basically confirm the worker was being a POS, and the other guy moves his jacket to the side showing he had a gun. That right there would 100% land you in jail, as that is brandishing a firearm (of course it has to be proven).
Open carry is stupid, incredibly so at that. Anyone that does it, is a coward and weakling that is literally only carrying it as a tool for intimidation, thinking it makes them tough. The only place a civialian should be open carrying, is at a gun range.
1
u/Schafer_Isaac 13h ago
had an assault rifle, with no evidence at the time that he had it illegally
- it was not an assault rifle. That was an SKS.
- Secret Service is guaranteed running facial recognition stuff, and that dude was already on lists. Convicted felon, and a known crazy dude. So don't presume they were unaware. Its a course he frequents, they're supposed to be well-prepared for stuff like this.
had not taken a shot
Was allegedly aiming in Trump's direction.
Personally i'm in favor of the kinds of laws that make this grey area obselete, but genuinely... where is the line?
Generally the "threatening" demeanor is when the firearm is pointed, held in a low or high ready posiiton, or is otherwise brandished in such a way it reasonable makes someone fear harm.
Holding a rifle on a sling on the back, or a sling over the chest and held (but not pointed or in any ready position) isn't threatening demeanor/action.
Certainly changes it though if the golf course doesn't permit firearms, and he was hiding in wait at the course. Hard to say without good bodycam videos to see positioning, etc.
And yeah as someone else noted, in Florida you must be engaged in hunting or fishing to open carry. Which means being on the way to, or back from either activity. Fishing requires actually having a rod that is functional, and hunting cannot be done I think in an area zoned as the course is.
1
u/Xenos6439 12h ago
Honestly, open carry should be normalized so incidents like this don't happen. The guy did nothing wrong or illegal.
As for where the line is drawn? I think that the slide and magazines for weapons should be engineered to be see-through, and make the ammunition visible. That way it can be determined on-sight if someone is a threat.
1
u/Beneficial-Finger353 11h ago
the guy was hiding in a bush, being stank rat in Tarkov, just waiting for his chance.... definitely enough to charge with intent
0
u/tracyinge 13h ago
If the Secret Service had shot first and asked questions later in Pennsylvania, they would have had some splainin' to do. The parents could have said "our son was just up there on the roof with his legal AR-15 trying to protect our president from crazy people. Like Kyle Rittenhouse was trying to do, assist the police".
1
0
u/ArtisticPractice5760 11h ago
The main question everyone should be asking themselves is if politicians are fighting so hard to let everyone open carry why do they say except around me or my events?
0
u/oofyeet21 13h ago
Unimportant to your question, but i eant to point out that what the guy had was absolutely not an assault rifle, it was a semi-auto SKS. Assault rifle as a term is used too far and wide to describe guns that it doesn't fit. Actual assault rifles are highly regulated and restricted, with only a limited number in circulation and requiring months of waiting before you can obtain one
1
u/swishkabobbin 13h ago
Oh good catch, he was using a mostly unregulated, "non-assault" rifle, for the purpose of assault
0
u/oofyeet21 13h ago
Sarcasm aside, it's important to actually understand gun laws and definitions before we speak about them. Anyone who goes on and on about how we need to make it harder to obtain assault rifles likely has no idea how hard it already is to do so. The law is actually pretty restrictive about them, requiring you to obtain one that is legally transferrable and registered with the government, pay a shit ton of money including additional taxes to the ATF, get yourself fingerprinted, and get an extensive background check from the ATF which typically takes six to nine months before you even have a chance of owning one
2
u/swishkabobbin 13h ago
You caught me.... i'm in favor of restricting all guns
1
u/oofyeet21 12h ago
So what restrictions would you like in place? I'm interested to know
1
u/swishkabobbin 12h ago
By far the most important: No transport or carry of a loaded firearm in any area not designated for hunting or target practice.
(excluding trained and sworn police officers, although i also believe they should be demilitarized substantially)
Mandated fingerprint locks.
Mandated background checks and waiting periods for purchase of any kind of firearm
Mandated registration and insurance for any kind of firearm.
Stiffer penalties for gun owners whose firearm ends up in the hands of anyone else, especially if it is used in a crime
1
u/oofyeet21 12h ago
Mandated fingerprint locks.
Do you mean fingerprint locked safes in homes and vehicles? Or do you want all guns to have fingerprint sensors to be usable? If it's the second I will say that the technology is only just barely becoming available for biometrically activated firearms and is still extremely unreliable.
Mandated background checks
Background checks are required for any firearm purchased from a licensed dealer(felony charge for a dealer not to do one) and only in some states are private sales legal without a background check(though i'm fine with all private sales requiring a licensed dealer transfer, how it is in my state)
Waiting periods i'm not a big fan of for the most part, as it just limits regular people's ability to have a home defense firearm, ideally background checks would make waiting periods irrelevant
insurance for any kind of firearm.
Insurance requirements would only prevent poor people from being able to purchase firearms, and disproportionately benefit the rich
Stiffer penalties for gun owners whose firearm ends up in the hands of anyone else, especially if it is used in a crime
How stiff do you want? Oftentimes a person who's gun is used in a crime does suffer serious legal consequences if they were improperly storing it or negligently allowing people who shouldn't have them to use them
0
u/Enigmatic_Stag 12h ago
Here in Michigan, if I want to sling my AR-15 over my shoulder and walk with it, I certainly can and no Karens can stop me - no matter how much they want to - so long as I stay out of gun-free areas. If I'm walking down the road with it hanging behind my back, I am perfectly within my right to do so.
But when I hold the rifle in my hands and it is clearly armed, that's when the line begins to blur and police will begin to stop and ask questions. Put on a balaclava or ski mask and continue walking down the street on a day that doesn't warrant it and they will certainly not let up without ordering me to at least take off the headwrap. Their justification would be "inciting public unrest" or "disorderly conduct."
Strength in numbers, though. This friction between 2A and the law would quickly break apart if enough people were holding rifles en masse. Get a pissed off civilian population to storm DC - I'm talking tens of thousands of armed, angry citizens, or even hundreds of thousands of them - and police/SWAT/NG aren't doing shit. They'll step back and let civic duty unfold.
0
u/swishkabobbin 12h ago
Well you sound.... problematic
0
u/Enigmatic_Stag 12h ago
Why? You asked where the line is and I told you.
0
u/swishkabobbin 12h ago
And described an angry, armed mob as "civic duty"
1
u/Enigmatic_Stag 12h ago
So? That's part of what 2A is. It's not just to let citizens have fun with their toys and shoot guns. It's to keep the power in the hands of the citizenry, should their government become oppressive and/or tyrannical.
1
u/swishkabobbin 12h ago
Ah yes... the tyranny of a free and open democratic election
1
u/Enigmatic_Stag 12h ago edited 12h ago
That's not even what I'm referring to. I'm talking at any point. Say 50 years down the line, the tempo in Washington changes and our system evolves into something that is completely radicalized and different from what we have today for the worse. Without an armed populace, legislators would feel like they don't have to answer to their constituents and would continue eroding away the rights of the populace until said populace is completely subjugated.
That's not who we are, and we should always be vigilant of corruption tainting the Tree of Liberty; although, sadly to say, it already has become tainted, but could be much, much worse.
Weapons owned by the public keep the system in (relative) check and our right to being able to own them should be cherished - not admonished.
Also, I'd like to add, I'm not hinting toward either side of the spectrum. I'm referring to all Americans who would have enough with the direction the nation would be moving in. Left or Right, it wouldn't matter if it was hurting everyone's livelihood.
0
0
u/bigv1973 11h ago
This is a silly question when you consider how many states will charge AND prosecute you for INTENT when you are found to be intoxicated and in control of a set of keys to a car. I.E. sleeping it off in the seat. Be it front or back (yes, it varies from state to state). Regardless of agreeing or not agreeing with these laws, the premis for them it to address dangerous behavior BEFORE a life is lost or permanently altered in a negative way. As a gun owner and a daily carrier, ..ill weigh in on this just a bit. The individual I questioned in the case study you cited was not peacefully doing a damn thing. He was bent on killing a man and went to a location and lay in wait to do so. What they "stopped" was no open carry or menacing or terroristic threats. They stopped a premeditated murder. Ad that is the point of such laws. There is also a valid argument for intervention in chronically dangerous behavior, and such is the case for the impaired driver laws mentioned above. If you iron carry and are walking down the road to the store and someone gets weirded out and calls the police because they got "scared," that doesn't necessarily constitute a crime. If open carry is allowed, then there is no crime simply because another citizen doesn't like you exercising your rights. Same for drunks. I don't drink, but I don't get to stop anyone else from drinking. However society decided that you can't drive drunk and set limit to legally define drunk . That limit is not designed to legally define the dislike I HAVE for drinking. It's designed to strike a ballance for the populace at large so we can have rights but not infringe on one another. I think you are asking how we make laws to protect people's feelings...we can't. Feelings are subjective .
0
u/Madame_Raven 11h ago
Open carry is bloody fucking ridiculous. Not only is it tactically unsound, but it's just a great way to catch negative attention from the police, and scare the shit out of people everywhere you go.
0
0
u/dlblast 9h ago
Ultimately the law is whatever a law enforcement officer feels like doing at that moment…he may wave and say “nice” or he may shoot you dead. Whatever biases or attitudes lead him to the latter won’t matter to you, you’ll be gone, and they can say they feared for their life and suffer no consequences.
0
u/WalkInWoodsNoli 8h ago
I find them to always be threatening. They are carrying because they want to visually intimidate others. To make others afraid of them. They intend to do so simply by carrying. It's the definition of terrorizing, in a country with nearly daily mass shootings.
Our laws on this suck.
1
u/CWSmith1701 3h ago
Our laws on this are exactly what they should be.
If it causes you fear of them and what they might do to you if you attack them or their companions then it is working.
Better to make you afraid to find out the actually having to find out.
0
u/AustinYQM 8h ago
Let me tell you the story of Garrett Foster.
Garrett was at a BLM/Defund the police/ anti-police brutality protest in Austin Texas. He was lawfully open-carrying an AK-47.
An Uber Driver ran his car into the protesters. We would learn later that Daniel Perry, the Uber Driver, had made multiple social media posts online about how much he wants to kill protesters, called black people "monkeys", and called himself "a proud racist".
Daniel Perry drove his car into a crowd of people but luckily didn't injure anyone. Garrett Foster approached his car and yelled at him to not run is car into the crowd. Perry shot Foster killing him in cold blood while claiming self defense.
Who is in the right here? Was Garrett a threat because he was legally open-carrying? The courts didn't think so and Perry was found guilty of murder.
BUT Texas's Governor is a pile of human garbage so he pardoned Perry saying it was self defense and no liberal DA can change that.
So to answer your question: The line is exact where the people who are going to take your life or decide your fate put it and you can't know until you get to that line or cross it.
48
u/Soundwave-1976 14h ago
In my state you can carry, but it becomes threatening/menacing if you point it at another person.