Page 1 of 2

arming someone else?

Posted: Sat Jul 10, 2010 7:16 pm
by lowonair
i've been wondering about this for a while now and decided to ask you guys what you think. lets say im going about my business and we'll say i'm carrying my G36 and my s&w 442 while i'm out with a friend or my girlfriend. we pull into a convenience store and both get out to get drinks or whatever and while we are both inside someone comes in to rob the place. is it legal to hand my second gun to the other person that is with me so they can help stop the threat? i've never heard anyone go over this and figured it may happen someday. :tiphat:

Re: arming someone else?

Posted: Sat Jul 10, 2010 7:29 pm
by jester
I believe it's technically UCW if they don't have a CHL, or some other exemption, although it's difficult to imagine charges being filed in that situation. However, if charges are filed, PC 9.22 sounds like the appropriate affirmative defense.

Me <> Lawyer

Re: arming someone else?

Posted: Sat Jul 10, 2010 7:33 pm
by Salty1
Too many variables to even attempt to answer the question. Personally I would not risk pulling my gun to save somebody elses money. A true threat to life (especially my own) is another story. Who is the robber? What actual threats are they making? Any innocents around and where are they positioned? What is the clerk doing? Is the person I am with highly skilled with a handgun? If they are why do they not have their own? How much money do you have in the bank, the store is not going to pay for your defense should something go wrong, although I understand that innocent lives do not have a price, but over reaction very well could. I find it impossible to provide a true answer to your question..... every situation is very different..

Re: arming someone else?

Posted: Sat Jul 10, 2010 8:07 pm
by lowonair
Salty1 wrote:Too many variables to even attempt to answer the question. Personally I would not risk pulling my gun to save somebody elses money. A true threat to life (especially my own) is another story. Who is the robber? What actual threats are they making? Any innocents around and where are they positioned? What is the clerk doing? Is the person I am with highly skilled with a handgun? If they are why do they not have their own? How much money do you have in the bank, the store is not going to pay for your defense should something go wrong, although I understand that innocent lives do not have a price, but over reaction very well could. I find it impossible to provide a true answer to your question..... every situation is very different..
this applies to every question on this forum. what i'm getting at is if i'm justified to draw and use force, would it be okay to arm someone that i trust with a firearm to help end the situation?

Re: arming someone else?

Posted: Sat Jul 10, 2010 8:26 pm
by gigag04
Only if while you're in the store you purchase a lotto ticket and its the powerball winner.

Re: arming someone else?

Posted: Sat Jul 10, 2010 8:36 pm
by Salty1
Ok, you want a black and white answer... IMO it is no, they can be charged with UCW as they have no legal right to possess that firearm in public without a license and this would not fall under the Motorist Protection Act. If they hurt an innocent bystander I think you would also be included in a civil suit for providing it to them knowing that they were not licensed. It is possible that a Grand Jury would not indict them ($$$$$) although I believe the PD and District Attormey would at a minimum present the case to the GJ and let them make the call, again it depends on the actual circumstances............. Personally I would not provide a firearm under this situation............

Re: arming someone else?

Posted: Sat Jul 10, 2010 9:11 pm
by lowonair
gigag04 wrote:Only if while you're in the store you purchase a lotto ticket and its the powerball winner.
if thats the case i wouldnt even stick around to do anything. i'd just head straight to austin :smilelol5:

Re: arming someone else?

Posted: Sat Jul 10, 2010 10:50 pm
by RHenriksen
One of Mas Ayoob's books talked about this as one of the benefits of carrying a BUG - that if your companion didn't have their CHL, you could pass your BUG to them if there was a situation. I can't imagine he'd be championing that tactic if it wasn't legal (in at least some jurisdictions!).

Re: arming someone else?

Posted: Sat Jul 10, 2010 11:00 pm
by .30calSolution
I'm not sure if this is state specific, but we have discussed it extensively on Ohioans for Concealed Carry. It's illegal if anyone inside your automobile has access to your firearm. Let's say you have it in the lockbox cabled to the seat or in the glovebox but the key is on your keychain in the ignition or cupholder(Or glovebox is unlocked). Yep, you guessed it...ILLEGAL.

Now, I am not sure what other things get thrown out of the window when you or anothers life is at stake. But, I do know that as a licensed individual no one else can have access to your firearm unless they are also licensed.

Re: arming someone else?

Posted: Sun Jul 11, 2010 12:33 am
by lowonair
.30calSolution wrote:I'm not sure if this is state specific, but we have discussed it extensively on Ohioans for Concealed Carry. It's illegal if anyone inside your automobile has access to your firearm. Let's say you have it in the lockbox cabled to the seat or in the glovebox but the key is on your keychain in the ignition or cupholder(Or glovebox is unlocked). Yep, you guessed it...ILLEGAL.

Now, I am not sure what other things get thrown out of the window when you or anothers life is at stake. But, I do know that as a licensed individual no one else can have access to your firearm unless they are also licensed.
i think thats just in ohio. i know plenty of people that have been pulled over here in texas with guns in glove compartments or center consoles that werent locked and nothing came of it when it was all said and done.

Re: arming someone else?

Posted: Sun Jul 11, 2010 12:51 am
by 03Lightningrocks
I wonder if you would realistically have time to hand a weapon to someone else without getting shot yourself. I have a bud who just started carrying concealed. He bought a glock and carry's with nothing in the pipe. I ask him not to draw if he is with me and we start to get robbed until after I get a chance to draw first. I wouldn't want to cause the BG to look in my direction until I already have a bullet headed in his direction.

Re: arming someone else?

Posted: Sun Jul 11, 2010 12:52 am
by .30calSolution
lowonair wrote:
.30calSolution wrote:I'm not sure if this is state specific, but we have discussed it extensively on Ohioans for Concealed Carry. It's illegal if anyone inside your automobile has access to your firearm. Let's say you have it in the lockbox cabled to the seat or in the glovebox but the key is on your keychain in the ignition or cupholder(Or glovebox is unlocked). Yep, you guessed it...ILLEGAL.

Now, I am not sure what other things get thrown out of the window when you or anothers life is at stake. But, I do know that as a licensed individual no one else can have access to your firearm unless they are also licensed.
i think thats just in ohio. i know plenty of people that have been pulled over here in texas with guns in glove compartments or center consoles that werent locked and nothing came of it when it was all said and done.
Good, I'm still not sure how the 'handing your gun to another person' thing would go. All I know is if the a problem arises, the least of my concerns would be whether or not I would get in legal trouble over it or not. Just my $.02.

Re: arming someone else?

Posted: Sun Jul 11, 2010 1:01 am
by Beiruty
When bullets starts flying and you or your friend would terminate a deadly threat, something tells me that the common sense will take over and legalities on technical basis will take a second row to your acts.

Re: arming someone else?

Posted: Sun Jul 11, 2010 1:11 am
by srothstein
Let me say first, that I think this would be legal. If there was a question about it, their defense against UCW would fall under the heading of necessity. If it was a real robbery attempt, I don't think most police would ask where the gun came from though (some certainly would).

But, let me tell you a story about a similar incident that shows why this may be a VERY bad idea. I was on patrol in San Antonio and had a police cadet riding with me on her academy rides. There was a call for shooting or something similar, and we ended up helping on a quadrant where the suspect was trapped in a fairly large field. In San Antonio, since cadets are not certified yet, they are not allowed to carry any firearms at all. Since we needed more people to help on the quadrant than we had, I gave the cadet the shotgun and stationed her near the car while I moved over to help cover another side of the field using my revolver. We got lucky and someone else caught the suspect, no shots fired on either side during the arrest. So, as we are getting back in the car the cadet gives me the shotgun back, in the exact same condition I gave it to her (no round in the chamber) and tells me she is glad she did not have to use it. This is a pretty normal reaction and I was about to say something along those lines when she continues with the fact that she did not know how since she had never handled a shotgun in her life before.

When you give your BUG to your friend, are you sure he knows how to use that type of weapon? If not, it disarms you and puts you at a tactical disadvantage as you count on backup that cannot help.

Re: arming someone else?

Posted: Sun Jul 11, 2010 1:11 am
by Hoi Polloi
My husband, who is reading over my shoulder, said that despite not being a lawyer, he thinks the below section of the Texas penal code would apply in such a situation so that necessity would justify unlawful possession of a firearm, making that particular aspect of the legality of handing a BUG to an unlicensed bystander/friend a non-issue.

PENAL CODE
TITLE 2. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY
CHAPTER 9. JUSTIFICATION EXCLUDING CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY

Sec. 9.22. NECESSITY. Conduct is justified if:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the conduct is immediately necessary to avoid imminent harm;
(2) the desirability and urgency of avoiding the harm clearly outweigh, according to ordinary standards of reasonableness, the harm sought to be prevented by the law proscribing the conduct; and
(3) a legislative purpose to exclude the justification claimed for the conduct does not otherwise plainly appear.