Arizona governor casts veto
Newspapers report that the governor vetoed a couple of bills, one to make the CCW license a lifetime one, another to make it clear that a person could display a firearm (but not use it) in response to verbal threats.
UPDATE: I recall several cases where you had one guy going along side or tailgating the other, shouting threats, the recipient of the threat showed him that he was armed, and the one making the threats departed, called 911, and got the sorta-defender arrested. It was probably under Ariz. Rev. Statutes 13-2904, covering disorderly conduct:
"A. A person commits disorderly conduct if, with intent to disturb the peace or quiet of a neighborhood, family or person, or with knowledge of doing so, such person
6. Recklessly handles, displays or discharges a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument.
B. Disorderly conduct under subsection A, paragraph 6 is a class 6 felony. Disorderly conduct under subsection A, paragraph 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 is a class 1 misdemeanor."
ANOTHER UPDATE: Prof. Joe Olson's remarks are in extended remarks, below.
From Joe Olson:
ince the validity defensive display IS the general rule in the United States, isn't the Arizona Governor a bit behind in her law studies?
This is from the second edition of Everything You Need About (Legally) Carrying a Handgun in Minnesota:
Defensive Display and Reasonable Force.
Defensive display of a firearm, sometimes called “brandishing,” may be defined as a lawful threat to cause death or serious bodily harm by the production of a weapon or otherwise, so long as the actor’s purpose is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly force only if necessary. See Model Penal Code sec. 3.11(2). It does not involve the actual discharge of a firearm, for example. Nor does it constitute the “use” of deadly force.
Although there is no Minnesota case law on point, brandishing should be governed by the rules for use of reasonable force set forth in Minnesota Statute 609.06 (see page xxx). This is the usual American rule. As criminal law scholar Wayne R. LaFave says, “merely to threaten death or serious bodily harm, without any intention to carry out the threat [unless necessary], is not to use deadly force, so that one may be justified in pointing a gun at his attacker when he would not be justified in pulling the trigger.”
This is a common example of the necessity criteria in action prohibiting greater force when lesser force will do. If the assailant continues the attack, use of deadly force (i.e., firing the gun) will be necessary and, therefore authorized. An imminent threat is often not instantaneous. If the threat (even of death or great bodily injury) can be neutralized by a mere counter threat, if safe for the defender, that is certainly allowable even if never mandatory.
Ninety-eight percent of successful defensive gun uses involve mere brandishing - display of the firearm. The defender demonstrates that she is capable of using deadly force and the encounter ends as the assailant flees. Even criminals can weight the odds of their own injury.
Although seldom heard of by the public except in homicide cases, justification defenses like self-defense apply to all crimes. Thus self-defense may be pleaded if as a consequence of a brandishing incident you are charged [under Minnesota law] with assault in the second degree (a felony), with intentionally pointing a gun at or toward another person (a misdemeanor) or with reckless handling or using a gun so as to endanger the safety of another (a misdemeanor).
The book (the text of which is 95% applicable in all permit states) can be purchased from http://aacfi.com/products/MNEverythingYouNeedToKnow.php. Special editions for Missouri and Kansas are available too as well as a Utah Supplement.