Discreet vs Concealed Carry

[blujax01]

What many here may fail to understand is that laws vary from state to state. What is not a crime in one state may be a felony in another.

...

LOUISIANA 14:40.2 Willful, malicious, and repeated following or harassing with intent to place in fear of death or bodily injury. Maximum 1 year jail and $1000 fine. If had dangerous weapon: fine $1,000 and/or jail 1 year. If stalking and protective order for same victim, or criminal proceeding for stalking victim or injunction: jail 90 days minimum and 2 years maximum and/or fined maximum $5,000. If victim under 18, maximum 1 year and/or $2000 fine. Note: anyone over 13 who stalks a child 12 and under and is found to have placed child in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury of family member shall be punished by 1 year minimum, 3 years maximum in jail and/or $1,500 minimum, $5,000 maximum fine If 2nd within 7 years: jail minimum 180 days and maximum 3 years and/or fined maximum $5,000. If 3rd or subsequent within 7 years: jail minimum 2 years and maximum 5 years and/or fined maximum $5,000

Read more: Stalking laws - Information on the law about Stalking - Felony, Person, Maximum, Class, Victim, and Fear - JRank Articles Stalking laws - Information on the law about Stalking - Felony, Person, Maximum, Class, Victim, and Fear - JRank Articles


§40.1. Terrorizing
A. Terrorizing is the intentional communication of information that the commission of a crime of violence is imminent or in progress or that a circumstance dangerous to human life exists or is about to exist, with the intent of causing members of the general public to be in sustained fear for their safety; or causing evacuation of a building, a public structure, or a facility of transportation; or causing other serious disruption to the general public.
B. Whoever commits the offense of terrorizing shall be fined not more than fifteen thousand dollars or imprisoned with or without hard labor for not more than fifteen years, or both.
Acts 1985, No. 191, §1; Acts 1997, No. 1318, §2, eff. July 15, 1997; Acts 2001, No. 1112, §1.

§40.3. Cyberstalking
A. For the purposes of this Section, the following words shall have the following meanings:
(1) "Electronic communication" means any transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature, transmitted in whole or in part by wire, radio, computer, electromagnetic, photoelectric, or photo-optical system.
(2) "Electronic mail" means the transmission of information or communication by the use of the Internet, a computer, a facsimile machine, a pager, a cellular telephone, a video recorder, or other electronic means sent to a person identified by a unique address or address number and received by that person.
B. Cyberstalking is action of any person to accomplish any of the following:
(1) Use in electronic mail or electronic communication of any words or language threatening to inflict bodily harm to any person or to such person's child, sibling, spouse, or dependent, or physical injury to the property of any person, or for the purpose of extorting money or other things of value from any person.
(2) Electronically mail or electronically communicate to another repeatedly, whether or not conversation ensues, for the purpose of threatening, terrifying, or harassing any person.
(3) Electronically mail or electronically communicate to another and to knowingly make any false statement concerning death, injury, illness, disfigurement, indecent conduct, or criminal conduct of the person electronically mailed or of any member of the person's family or household with the intent to threaten, terrify, or harass.
(4) Knowingly permit an electronic communication device under the person's control to be used for the taking of an action in Paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of this Subsection.
C.(1) Whoever commits the crime of cyberstalking shall be fined not more than two thousand dollars, or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.
(2) Upon a second conviction occurring within seven years of the prior conviction for cyberstalking, the offender shall be imprisoned for not less than one hundred and eighty days and not more than three years, and may be fined not more than five thousand dollars, or both.
(3) Upon a third or subsequent conviction occurring within seven years of a prior conviction for stalking, the offender shall be imprisoned for not less than two years and not more than five years and may be fined not more than five thousand dollars, or both.
D. Any offense under this Section committed by the use of electronic mail or electronic communication may be deemed to have been committed where the electronic mail or electronic communication was originally sent, originally received, or originally viewed by any person.
E. This Section does not apply to any peaceable, nonviolent, or nonthreatening activity intended to express political views or to provide lawful information to others.
Acts 2001, No. 737, §1.

These are all Louisiana Laws.

 

[oldman45]

Thats not true. Open carry has nothing to do with brandishing. Brandishing is the intentional showing of a pistol as a means of intimidation. Having your shirt ride up while getting out of the car exposing your pistola is not brandishing, pulling up your shirt and exposing the gun to someone is.

Open carry is legal here, and there are brandishing laws on the books.

Again, we are talking BRANDISHING. Pulling a weapon, display of a weapon, even inadvertant showing of a weapon is brandishing. Wearing one while open carrying is not brandishing. Pulling it and having it in one's hand is brandishing.

I have been in law enforcement in some capacity since 1966 and never had or saw anyone charged with Brandishing in this State. There are other charges available that are more effective. This is an open carry state.

I have told this before here but I was hired to assist in a criminal defense case several years ago. The professional man was having his yard torn up by a four wheel drive vehicle loaded with teens and in the middle of the night. He woke up, stuck his gun in his waistband and stopped the truck. The SO was called. Not once did he pull the gun or put his hand on it. Three neighbors were there and testified he did not touch or produce the weapon. Yet the punk kids said he waved it but never pointed it. He was charged with felony threatening. At trial, he was accquitted but only after a circus of a trial and a lot of perjury by the punks, their pastor and all their school chums. Never was charged with Brandishing.

 

[oldman45]

LOUISIANA 14:40.2 Willful, malicious, and repeated following or harassing with intent to place in fear of death or bodily injury. Maximum 1 year jail and $1000 fine. If had dangerous weapon: fine $1,000 and/or jail 1 year. If stalking and protective order for same victim, or criminal proceeding for stalking victim or injunction: jail 90 days minimum and 2 years maximum and/or fined maximum $5,000. If victim under 18, maximum 1 year and/or $2000 fine. Note: anyone over 13 who stalks a child 12 and under and is found to have placed child in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury of family member shall be punished by 1 year minimum, 3 years maximum in jail and/or $1,500 minimum, $5,000 maximum fine If 2nd within 7 years: jail minimum 180 days and maximum 3 years and/or fined maximum $5,000. If 3rd or subsequent within 7 years: jail minimum 2 years and maximum 5 years and/or fined maximum $5,000

Read more: Stalking laws - Information on the law about Stalking - Felony, Person, Maximum, Class, Victim, and Fear - JRank Articles Stalking laws - Information on the law about Stalking - Felony, Person, Maximum, Class, Victim, and Fear - JRank Articles


§40.1. Terrorizing
A. Terrorizing is the intentional communication of information that the commission of a crime of violence is imminent or in progress or that a circumstance dangerous to human life exists or is about to exist, with the intent of causing members of the general public to be in sustained fear for their safety; or causing evacuation of a building, a public structure, or a facility of transportation; or causing other serious disruption to the general public.
B. Whoever commits the offense of terrorizing shall be fined not more than fifteen thousand dollars or imprisoned with or without hard labor for not more than fifteen years, or both.
Acts 1985, No. 191, §1; Acts 1997, No. 1318, §2, eff. July 15, 1997; Acts 2001, No. 1112, §1.

§40.3. Cyberstalking
A. For the purposes of this Section, the following words shall have the following meanings:
(1) "Electronic communication" means any transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature, transmitted in whole or in part by wire, radio, computer, electromagnetic, photoelectric, or photo-optical system.
(2) "Electronic mail" means the transmission of information or communication by the use of the Internet, a computer, a facsimile machine, a pager, a cellular telephone, a video recorder, or other electronic means sent to a person identified by a unique address or address number and received by that person.
B. Cyberstalking is action of any person to accomplish any of the following:
(1) Use in electronic mail or electronic communication of any words or language threatening to inflict bodily harm to any person or to such person's child, sibling, spouse, or dependent, or physical injury to the property of any person, or for the purpose of extorting money or other things of value from any person.
(2) Electronically mail or electronically communicate to another repeatedly, whether or not conversation ensues, for the purpose of threatening, terrifying, or harassing any person.
(3) Electronically mail or electronically communicate to another and to knowingly make any false statement concerning death, injury, illness, disfigurement, indecent conduct, or criminal conduct of the person electronically mailed or of any member of the person's family or household with the intent to threaten, terrify, or harass.
(4) Knowingly permit an electronic communication device under the person's control to be used for the taking of an action in Paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of this Subsection.
C.(1) Whoever commits the crime of cyberstalking shall be fined not more than two thousand dollars, or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.
(2) Upon a second conviction occurring within seven years of the prior conviction for cyberstalking, the offender shall be imprisoned for not less than one hundred and eighty days and not more than three years, and may be fined not more than five thousand dollars, or both.
(3) Upon a third or subsequent conviction occurring within seven years of a prior conviction for stalking, the offender shall be imprisoned for not less than two years and not more than five years and may be fined not more than five thousand dollars, or both.
D. Any offense under this Section committed by the use of electronic mail or electronic communication may be deemed to have been committed where the electronic mail or electronic communication was originally sent, originally received, or originally viewed by any person.
E. This Section does not apply to any peaceable, nonviolent, or nonthreatening activity intended to express political views or to provide lawful information to others.
Acts 2001, No. 737, §1.

These are all Louisiana Laws.

And your point is? Have we discussed terrorizing, stalking or such?

 

[Armed Babysitter]

Again, we are talking BRANDISHING. Pulling a weapon, display of a weapon, even inadvertant showing of a weapon is brandishing. Wearing one while open carrying is not brandishing. Pulling it and having it in one's hand is brandishing.

I have been in law enforcement in some capacity since 1966 and never had or saw anyone charged with Brandishing in this State. There are other charges available that are more effective. This is an open carry state.

I have told this before here but I was hired to assist in a criminal defense case several years ago. The professional man was having his yard torn up by a four wheel drive vehicle loaded with teens and in the middle of the night. He woke up, stuck his gun in his waistband and stopped the truck. The SO was called. Not once did he pull the gun or put his hand on it. Three neighbors were there and testified he did not touch or produce the weapon. Yet the punk kids said he waved it but never pointed it. He was charged with felony threatening. At trial, he was accquitted but only after a circus of a trial and a lot of perjury by the punks, their pastor and all their school chums. Never was charged with Brandishing.

Again, I was only pointing out that you were wrong when you said that states with open carry won't have brandishing laws.

 

[oldman45]

I the case of the home owner the intruder has just committed a felony and the owner is reasonably in fear for his life. Intimidation is a crime in most states if not all sir, and the majority of states allow direct threat of deadly force as reasonable cause to respond with deadly force. Is it a crime for a man to enter a bank show his gun, and politely ask if anyone could spare some change?

I will give an example of a court case I've heard: man hears what he believed to be a gunshot in the middle of the night. He tells his wife to call 911 after verifying she is unharmed, grabs his pistol and rushes to his car to follow a car he sees speeding off. When the other car stops, not realizing they were being perused the man jumps out of his car and draws down on the assailants telling them not to move and that the police are on their way. The driver seems to make a sudden move, he shoots and kills him believing he is reaching for the gun they just used to shoot at his house. The suspect turned out to be a fifteen year old boy, armed only with a slingshot, which had indeed shot through the window, with the vacuum sealed glass making a sound similar to a gun shot. The man was cleared of all charges as he thought he was acting in self defense at the time.

So no, they don't have to be in the process of doing you harm, you just have to have reason to believe they are posing an imminent threat on your life. In placing your hand on the weapon in a threatening manor, you have posed an imminent threat on my life. Deadly force authorized.

Ok, I will give you an example. A local sgt was working a part time security gig at a local hospital. He was walking a nurse to her car about midnight. There were some perps taking off her tires and he interrupted their crime. They jumped into an old Cadillac and sped through the parking lot but it had a controlled access point so they had to come back by him. As it sped toward him, in uniform, he pulled his issued weapon. He stood his ground and then fired ten rounds into the Cadillac before jumping out of the way. He got suspended for 30 days. His life was not in danger. The public was not in danger. All he had to do was step out of the driveway.

I can name you several times where trained, veteran police officers shot someone thinking there was a gun or their life was in danger and they went to jail.

This is why I always tell people to think about the potential for legal action before they fire their weapon. Ofr everyone that is acquitted, there are a lot more that are found guilty.

Going on the theory of fear for life, I ccould say that my brother in law was threatening me and I was in fear for my life as I was in my own house. Do you really think I would walk free if I shot him?

The City of Shreveport, LA recently paid a very large sum of money to the family of a drunken man fatally shot by officers who mistakenly believed he was about to shoot them. There had been a high speed five mile chase and three times, he took a stance on them. His weapon was a silver cell phone eing held like a handun. All of it is on video and posted on the internet. The officers found themselves in a bad spot but were eventually cleared a year later. Think of the legal costs if they had not been under the employ of the City.

 

[loknload]

Here in PA we can open carry, me I'm a firm believer in concealed carry, never let anyone know what's up my sleeve!
Don't ask, Don't tell and Don't advertise...........

 

[blujax01]

And your point is? Have we discussed terrorizing, stalking or such?

In post #134 you say:
"A person can show they are armed. A person can say they will kill you. Neither has broken a law until they actually attempt to harm you."

I am showing you that death threats are indeed against the law in Louisiana. If I am stalking you with a gun, or if I am terrorizing you by saying that I am going to kill you with a gun, I do not have to harm you with it to be breaking the law.

You know what - I give up.
You are right and I am wrong.
As you say, I can open carry anywhere in Louisiana because it's been the law for so long no one notices if you are armed. Unless it's in NO.
I can open carry and no one will notice it because it's seen everywhere in Louisiana three or four times a day - even though no one on this board has seen it.
You will not give me a second glance if I am open carrying because if is so common. However, if I am CC'ing and tell you that I am, you are going to disarm me - with or without my cooperation - for your safety.
I can show my gun to anyone and tell them I am going to kill them and I have not broken the law until I actually harm them. (Except, I assume, In New Orleans).
After all is said and done I am still wrong and You are the Expert.

 

[patvin]

Thx to all of you, because it is a very interesting thread....even if here in France i am not at all concerned neither by open carry, nor concelated!!!
In fact i would like to know what other state think about it §...eg Arizona, Alaska, Montana......let us know what are your thought about the open VS concelated carry ?
Thx Regards.
Pat.

 

[Frailer]

I didn't read every post in this thread, so I'm not sure how this evolved into an open-vs-concealed debate. The OP mentioned *discreet* carry.

I think I know where he's coming from. While I don't carry openly, I don't go to extraordinary lengths to avoid "printing," either.

 

[Springfeildkid585]

Ok, I will give you an example. A local sgt was working a part time security gig at a local hospital. He was walking a nurse to her car about midnight. There were some perps taking off her tires and he interrupted their crime. They jumped into an old Cadillac and sped through the parking lot but it had a controlled access point so they had to come back by him. As it sped toward him, in uniform, he pulled his issued weapon. He stood his ground and then fired ten rounds into the Cadillac before jumping out of the way. He got suspended for 30 days. His life was not in danger. The public was not in danger. All he had to do was step out of the driveway.

I can name you several times where trained, veteran police officers shot someone thinking there was a gun or their life was in danger and they went to jail.

This is why I always tell people to think about the potential for legal action before they fire their weapon. Ofr everyone that is acquitted, there are a lot more that are found guilty.

Going on the theory of fear for life, I ccould say that my brother in law was threatening me and I was in fear for my life as I was in my own house. Do you really think I would walk free if I shot him?

The City of Shreveport, LA recently paid a very large sum of money to the family of a drunken man fatally shot by officers who mistakenly believed he was about to shoot them. There had been a high speed five mile chase and three times, he took a stance on them. His weapon was a silver cell phone eing held like a handun. All of it is on video and posted on the internet. The officers found themselves in a bad spot but were eventually cleared a year later. Think of the legal costs if they had not been under the employ of the City.

Let's face it, if someone is shot, the shooter will face litigation and pay attorney fees. A perfectly justified case of self-defense can and has resulted in a murder conviction. Those are the risks and responsibilities we take as owners and carriers of firearms.

 

[Triggernosis]

Ok, I will give you an example. A local sgt was working a part time security gig at a local hospital. He was walking a nurse to her car about midnight. There were some perps taking off her tires and he interrupted their crime. They jumped into an old Cadillac and sped through the parking lot but it had a controlled access point so they had to come back by him. As it sped toward him, in uniform, he pulled his issued weapon. He stood his ground and then fired ten rounds into the Cadillac before jumping out of the way. He got suspended for 30 days. His life was not in danger. The public was not in danger. All he had to do was step out of the driveway.

I have a female friend who was a cop do the very same thing in Raleigh, NC. She killed the guy and was fired from her job and no longer works in law enforcement.

 

[Chuck1217]

I've read a bunch of stuff about this by Mas Ayoob, anybody that wants to know should look up some of his articles. He gives many examples of people doing the right thing and still ending up in court, or worse prison. There are some tricky lines, and a lot of em are dependent on your attorney, and being able to afford expert witnesses. I think Mr. Ayoob's overall point is practice, create different scenarios and practice what you would do- learn as much as possible and try and do what's best. Then be prepared to talk to the cops, by saying the right things, not the wrong. I won't go on but to say check him out. He knows what he's talking about.

 

[Chuck1217]

Just reading some of the older posts with substantial warnings of what can happen if you do indeed draw and shoot. There'snother very recent article, again by Mr. Ayoob I think, but not sure, about how hesitatio can get you killed. If you stand there and have to consciously go through the 'what if he doens't have a gun, will I go to jail? or what if I shoot 4 times, will the jury say I used undue force?' etc etc...again, you need to know the answers to all that before it happens, cause "thinking' can get you or your loved ones killed.

 

[Steve in Vermont]

It appears we're making this more complicated than it needs to be. The bottom line comes down to this. At the moment you made the decision to fire your gun did you (1) truly believe your life was in mortal danger and (2) did you do everything reasonably possible to remove yourself from this situation? Many of the shootings described a person firing at a motor vehicle. Of course your life is in mortal danger if you stand in front of a moving car. But part 2 is also important. Did you have time to move out of its way? That's the key. If your in a situation in which you don't shoot, and you can't escape, and your likely to die, then it's justified and you'll probably not face a jury.