In fact, brandishing saves lives. A police officer brandished his sidearm to stop the attacks on the NYPD Chief. Worked like a charm.
It doesn't matter buying a gun is regulated by Federal laws. Just read a 4473 and you will see what I mentioned is a dis-qualifier or are just trying to be stubborn?
Law enforcement can do so to effect a arrest, law abiding citizens should avoid doing it unless their lives are threatened, you can not point a gun at someone unless you are in immediate fear of death or serious injury.
Yes. Any felony offense in the federal or state courts. Or, if they exist, any misdemeanor which carries a possible maximum punishment of more than one year. Also, it appears the couple has been charged in state court.... https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...protesters-charged-with-felony-weapons-count/
I think the prosecutor is in for a rough ride, the Governor is on the record stating he will pardon both of them should she try to get a conviction and then he has hinted he will then remove her from office. If he will actually follow through is a different story.
Sure, but you're not saying that they reacted unreasonably are you? You can surely understand why they were slightly scared. So you are saying that shooting to kill would be the only option if intruders enter a house? I made a typo. You said what the McCloskey's did was, "stupid and IS NOT going to cost them dearly", and I was just checking to see if you instead meant, it IS going to cost them dearly, given that, that would make more sense in context of them being "stupid." Who says that they have been arrested?
let me make this clear, they acted very unreasonably If it comes to the point a person needs to shoot they should shoot to kill, otherwise they ruin their claim of being a fear of their life. They both have been and where charged with a felony crime.
Surely it is rather, displaying it UNJUSTIFIABLY in a threatening manner. I was really thinking specifically of search warrants for searching someone's property. Computers are containers, which can contain illegal things. The computer isn't the illegal thing, it's what may be contained on it that the search warrant is targeting. So in such cases, I would say that these search warrants are looking for illegal things, even though a legal thing such as a computer is seized in the process. My point is that guns are legal things, but it is guns that the search warrant targeted, and I suspect that you can't name too many other examples. You get close with the scales example, but they are - to make up a term perhaps - 'accompanying evidence', accompanying the illegal thing of drugs which the search warrant is centered on. Yeah, I understand that. Would any of this be required if they openly confessed to brandishing their weapons? Even if it's a replica/mock gun? When is a search warrant obtained WITH the input of a defendant? I've never heard of that. That sounds crazy. Isn't the idea that they're supposed to be a surprise so that evidence isn't destroyed? So only in this case would it all of a sudden become public? Do you mean the reasoning used to justify the warrant?
So you can't understand why they were slightly scared? Are you saying that if an intruder breaks into someone's property and the home owner brandishes their weapon but doesn't fire it at the intruder but the threat is enough to make the intruder leave, that the home owner could get in trouble for brandishing if they were caught on video?
Actually, I meant to say that he was a lifelong Democrat, but that also appears to not be the case given what you say above. It looks like he is a lifelong party hopper!
NO dem voted for him? Then what do you suppose @Ddyad is referring to, saying that Trump "breached the Big Blue Wall?"
That doesn't matter. Video or not the person could go to prison, recently here in Florida a woman was threatened by her ex, she pulled her legally owned gun and fired a warning shot, but she didn't shoot him and he fled, the Dade county State Attorney claiming she could not have been in fear for her life because she didn't shoot him convicted her for aggravated assault and she was sent to prison for 20 years. You seem to understand very little about the laws surrounding guns and the severity of threatening someone with one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marissa_Alexander_case
This means nothing. She actually left her place of safety to confront her ex. That's why she got convicted.
So-called "warning shots" are not regarded as a legal use of deadly force. That has been a standard part of united states law for a very long time.
So you can get in LESS legal trouble by actually shooting and killing someone than just firing a warning shot? Surely you can't be serious!
Such is indeed the case. The discharge of a firearm is considered an exercising of deadly force in all circumstances, not simply some of them. If one is going to use deadly force, rather than threaten the use of deadly force, it must be done in response to an actual or strongly perceived threat to their immediate well being. It cannot be done in an effort to try and dissuade someone from committing violence.
Brandishing of a firearm is the implication of deadly force. Discharging a firearm is the use of deadly force. They are two different standards.