TexasCHLforum.com

Keith B wrote: ↑Thu Jul 30, 2020 5:25 pm

K.Mooneyham wrote: ↑Thu Jul 30, 2020 9:36 am If you read the story of the dismissal of the charges, you will find the word I most despise on the subject of firearms: "brandish". Some folks out on the interwebs like to bash on Texas' firearms laws, but at least we don't have to worry about that word or any of its derivatives. I despise that word because it has such a vague meaning that obviously can be twisted and misused so easily. Anyway, glad to see the charges against the couple were thrown out.

Missouri does use the term in some of the statues related to permitted concealed carry. However, what really constitutes brandishing is complex, and Texas law of ‘displaying in a threatening manner’ can be basically the same thing. Here’s a pretty good article on the term related to this case https://www.thetrace.org/2020/07/armed- ... f-defense/

I would take some council from what you stated because you have experience. It would seem to me, however, that since the phrase in Texas law is "displaying in a threatening manner", then the opposite can also be proven, such as "did NOT display in a threatening manner"/"displayed in a non-threatening manner". I simply find that the word "brandish" conjures up instantaneous mental images in people's minds when they hear it, since it gets used so often by news stories and the entertainment industry via police shows and legal dramas, and thus is open to wide interpretation, unless the laws of a particular jurisdiction more narrowly define the word.

If you read the story of the dismissal of the charges, you will find the word I most despise on the subject of firearms: "brandish". Some folks out on the interwebs like to bash on Texas' firearms laws, but at least we don't have to worry about that word or any of its derivatives. I despise that word because it has such a vague meaning that obviously can be twisted and misused so easily. Anyway, glad to see the charges against the couple were thrown out.