Arizona self defense laws improving!

[gamestalker]

I live in the great state of Arizona and have recently watched some wonderful self defense needs become law. Our Governor recently passed a law that allows us to use our handguns according to our personal circumstances regarding an impending threat. Example, someone is approaching you with a verbal threat or command and even though they may not have a weapon in their hand or possession of one, we now have the legal right to take action to what ever extent necessary to stop them from continueing their intended actions. Even if, as I stated, they don't have a weapon, we are not expected to take a beating, get robbed, car jacked, or in any way, shape, or form, be violated before defending our selves. A threat of any type is all that is needed to allow us to display or use our self defense means. It may only be necessary to display the weapon to make them change their mind. But if that isn't sufficient to stop their approaching intentions then firing a warning shot, time permitting, or even shooting them is considered allowable under the new law. However, another measure was put in place to eliminate unnecessary displaying of weapons to help eliminate confussing circumstances. This law states that we are not allowed to remove our weapons from their holster or handle them even while in the holster for any reason in public, unless for the purpose of defending our selves. Can I see your gun? as many people ask. The answer is no or you will be violating the display law as it should be. I would never remove my weapon in public for any reason other than for its intended purpose.

 

[skidmark]

Even if, as I stated, they don't have a weapon, we are not expected to take a beating, get robbed, car jacked, or in any way, shape, or form, be violated before defending our selves. A threat of any type is all that is needed to allow us to display or use our self defense means. It may only be necessary to display the weapon to make them change their mind. But if that isn't sufficient to stop their approaching intentions then firing a warning shot, time permitting, or even shooting them is considered allowable under the new law.

Would you provide this curious reader with a citation of the new law?

Thanks.

stay safe.

 

[Bikenut]

I live in the great state of Arizona and have recently watched some wonderful self defense needs become law. Our Governor recently passed a law that allows us to use our handguns according to our personal circumstances regarding an impending threat. Example, someone is approaching you with a verbal threat or command and even though they may not have a weapon in their hand or possession of one, we now have the legal right to take action to what ever extent necessary to stop them from continueing their intended actions. Even if, as I stated, they don't have a weapon, we are not expected to take a beating, get robbed, car jacked, or in any way, shape, or form, be violated before defending our selves. A threat of any type is all that is needed to allow us to display or use our self defense means. It may only be necessary to display the weapon to make them change their mind. But if that isn't sufficient to stop their approaching intentions then firing a warning shot, time permitting, or even shooting them is considered allowable under the new law. However, another measure was put in place to eliminate unnecessary displaying of weapons to help eliminate confussing circumstances. This law states that we are not allowed to remove our weapons from their holster or handle them even while in the holster for any reason in public, unless for the purpose of defending our selves. Can I see your gun? as many people ask. The answer is no or you will be violating the display law as it should be. I would never remove my weapon in public for any reason other than for its intended purpose.

I too would like to see the actual law that allows for "firing a warning shot".... especially since the person firing the gun is legally liable for any and all damage caused by any bullets that exit his/her gun... not to mention that "warning shots" are nothing more than stray bullets looking for a point of impact. (Even shots fired into the ground can ricochet off into who knows where hitting who knows who making "warning shots" a very, very, extremely terrible, idea.)

 

[Wastelander]

I live in the great state of Arizona and have recently watched some wonderful self defense needs become law. Our Governor recently passed a law that allows us to use our handguns according to our personal circumstances regarding an impending threat. Example, someone is approaching you with a verbal threat or command and even though they may not have a weapon in their hand or possession of one, we now have the legal right to take action to what ever extent necessary to stop them from continueing their intended actions. Even if, as I stated, they don't have a weapon, we are not expected to take a beating, get robbed, car jacked, or in any way, shape, or form, be violated before defending our selves. A threat of any type is all that is needed to allow us to display or use our self defense means. It may only be necessary to display the weapon to make them change their mind. But if that isn't sufficient to stop their approaching intentions then firing a warning shot, time permitting, or even shooting them is considered allowable under the new law. However, another measure was put in place to eliminate unnecessary displaying of weapons to help eliminate confussing circumstances. This law states that we are not allowed to remove our weapons from their holster or handle them even while in the holster for any reason in public, unless for the purpose of defending our selves. Can I see your gun? as many people ask. The answer is no or you will be violating the display law as it should be. I would never remove my weapon in public for any reason other than for its intended purpose.

Living in Arizona as well, I would like to see a source for this law--I hadn't heard of it before. That said, I believe that the verbal threat described in the law you refer to is most likely worded like Illinois's self defense law, stating that it must be a "credible verbal threat of bodily harm", not simply a threat. As far as warning shots go, the only relatively safe way to do that would be to shoot it straight up, because the worse someone will get from that is a bruise when it falls back down unless it somehow hits them in the eye.

 

[crisisweasel]

I am dubious that "warning shots" are permissible in any jurisdiction in the United States, but I will certainly stand corrected if anyone can point to a place where this is legal.

Relevant Arizona statute here seems to be:

13-421. Justification; defensive display of a firearm; definition

A. The defensive display of a firearm by a person against another is justified when and to the extent a reasonable person would believe that physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the use or attempted use of unlawful physical force or deadly physical force.

B. This section does not apply to a person who:

1. Intentionally provokes another person to use or attempt to use unlawful physical force.

2. Uses a firearm during the commission of a serious offense as defined in section 13-706 or violent crime as defined in section 13-901.03.


C. This section does not require the defensive display of a firearm before the use of physical force or the threat of physical force by a person who is otherwise justified in the use or threatened use of physical force.


D. For the purposes of this section, "defensive display of a firearm" includes:

1. Verbally informing another person that the person possesses or has available a firearm.

2. Exposing or displaying a firearm in a manner that a reasonable person would understand was meant to protect the person against another's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force or deadly physical force.

3. Placing the person's hand on a firearm while the firearm is contained in a pocket, purse or other means of containment or transport.

This is still fairly strong, I think, relative to other places, but it seems clear to me that warning shots are certainly not covered. What this seems to indicate is that you can get the point across that you have a firearm but you shouldn't brandish it. The limit here seems to be putting your hand on the holstered gun, which is as far as I would go.

 

[AZkopper]

Gamestalker:
Immediately put your guns in the safe, and go and buy a copy of the ARS. You do not know what you are talking about, and are a danger to those around you and will end up in jail.

There is no 'warning shots' in AZ. Crisisweasel has posted the 'defensive display' law. I suggest you read through all of ARS 13-400's sections, on justifications of deadly force or threat of deadly force.

 

[Wastelander]

I am dubious that "warning shots" are permissible in any jurisdiction in the United States, but I will certainly stand corrected if anyone can point to a place where this is legal.

Relevant Arizona statute here seems to be:



This is still fairly strong, I think, relative to other places, but it seems clear to me that warning shots are certainly not covered. What this seems to indicate is that you can get the point across that you have a firearm but you shouldn't brandish it. The limit here seems to be putting your hand on the holstered gun, which is as far as I would go.

That's the exact law I last knew of. Good to see I didn't miss anything, then. Thanks for posting that!

 

[Nevada carrier]

Don't squeeze the trigger unless you intend to implant your lead into an attackers body. We never fire warning shots, shoot to kill or don't shoot at all. If this doesn't sit well with you, don't carry a firearm.

 

[daddy4count]

"shoot to kill or don't shoot at all"

I disagree

Shoot to STOP, don't worry about whether or not they are alive or dead. Your only concern should be that they stop doing what they were doing to make you shoot at them in the first place.

If that means a well placed shot to the head or chest, great. But it also means you empty your magazine in any piece of them you can manage to hit if that is what it takes to eliminate a threat.

I was taught to shoot center-body-mass, always. In defensive shooting situations we were always told that we never shoot to wound, and we never shoot to kill. In a defensive shooting we only shoot to STOP.

Leave the killing to the professionals and worry about keeping yourself and those around you safe.

 

[Thoreau]

Don't squeeze the trigger unless you intend to implant your lead into an attackers body. We never fire warning shots, shoot to kill or don't shoot at all. If this doesn't sit well with you, don't carry a firearm.

Shooting to kill is called murder.

As for the OP, yeah, um, please for the love of god get some factual training, read and understand the laws, etc. before wandering around in this great state with a gun...

 

[groovedrummer]

Shooting to kill is called murder.

As for the OP, yeah, um, please for the love of god get some factual training, read and understand the laws, etc. before wandering around in this great state with a gun...

I think you have misunderstood the "shoot to kill" statement.

when someone truly puts you in the position to use your gun, it is now life or death (or at least the way you need to treat it imo)

the aftermath will leave plenty of time to debate.

In these moments you need to be a lion, not a lawyer.

you need to be fully aware that you pulling the trigger has a very VERY high likely hood of them not breathing anymore... so make peace with it...do not let that fact cause you to hesitate... to do what you need to do.

"shoot to kill" is just easier to say.

 

[Thoreau]

I think you have misunderstood the "shoot to kill" statement.

when someone truly puts you in the position to use your gun, it is now life or death (or at least the way you need to treat it imo)

the aftermath will leave plenty of time to debate.

In these moments you need to be a lion, not a lawyer.

you need to be fully aware that you pulling the trigger has a very VERY high likely hood of them not breathing anymore... so make peace with it...do not let that fact cause you to hesitate... to do what you need to do.

"Shoot to kill" means one thing and one thing only... pulling the trigger with the intent of ending the life on the other end of it. That is, always has been, and always will be murder. Go into court after the most justified of shooting incidents and claim that you shot to kill, and you had better not have any plans for some time after that.

Self-defense shooting is to stop the threat. Wether that causes death or not is irrelevant and very much after-the-fact. One shoots to make the threat STOP being a threat. Again, that might mean the attacker is dead, it might not. It's all about intent.

 

[Pseudonym]

"Shoot to kill" means one thing and one thing only... pulling the trigger with the intent of ending the life on the other end of it. That is, always has been, and always will be murder. Go into court after the most justified of shooting incidents and claim that you shot to kill, and you had better not have any plans for some time after that.

Self-defense shooting is to stop the threat. Wether that causes death or not is irrelevant and very much after-the-fact. One shoots to make the threat STOP being a threat. Again, that might mean the attacker is dead, it might not. It's all about intent.

Shooting to kill is not necessarily murder. Murder is the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. Killing in self defense is not premeditaded or unlawful (if you're preserving your life, property or that of a third party). The use of deady force law in the great state of Arizona is as follows:

13-405. Justification; use of deadly physical force
A. A person is justified in threatening or using deadly physical force against another:
1. If such person would be justified in threatening or using physical force against the other under section 13-404, and
2. When and to the degree a reasonable person would believe that deadly physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly physical force.
B. A person has no duty to retreat before threatening or using deadly physical force pursuant to this section if the person is in a place where the person may legally be and is not engaged in an unlawful act.

and the provision in using self defense as justification is as follows:

13-401. Unavailability of justification defense; justification as defense
A. Even though a person is justified under this chapter in threatening or using physical force or deadly physical force against another, if in doing so such person recklessly injures or kills an innocent third person, the justification afforded by this chapter is unavailable in a prosecution for the reckless injury or killing of the innocent third person.
B. Except as provided in subsection A, justification, as defined in this chapter, is a defense in any prosecution for an offense pursuant to this title.

There are separate provisions for using force and using deadly force. Essentially, if you feel your life or property is in danger and the only method of preserving either is by using deadly force, it is authorized.

 

[since9]

The point is that if you ever say "shoot to kill" a dimwitted prosecutor will have a field day with it at your expense.

Saying "shoot to stop" is (drat it) much more politically correct and helps avoid someone raising the question of whether you intended to stop your attacker or kill him.

 

[wrightme]

I live in the great state of Arizona and have recently watched some wonderful self defense needs become law. Our Governor recently passed a law that allows us to use our handguns according to our personal circumstances regarding an impending threat.

Governors do not pass laws.

This law states that we are not allowed to remove our weapons from their holster or handle them even while in the holster for any reason in public, unless for the purpose of defending our selves. Can I see your gun? as many people ask. The answer is no or you will be violating the display law as it should be. I would never remove my weapon in public for any reason other than for its intended purpose.

Cite? Which statute states that?

 

[sraacke]

As far as warning shots go, the only relatively safe way to do that would be to shoot it straight up, because the worse someone will get from that is a bruise when it falls back down unless it somehow hits them in the eye.

Bovine Feces! People are killed or serously injured all the time by falling bullets. We've had several in the Baton Rouge area over the past few years. Falling bullets do inflict serious damage. There is no safe direction for warning shots. The only time you should pull the trigger is when your sights are aimed at center mass of a deadly threat. Other than that, keep your booger hook off the bang switch.

 

[wrightme]

Bovine Feces! People are killed or serously injured all the time by falling bullets. We've had several in the Baton Rouge area over the past few years. Falling bullets do inflict serious damage. There is no safe direction for warning shots. The only time you should pull the trigger is when your sights are aimed at center mass of a deadly threat. Other than that, keep your booger hook off the bang switch.

"Falling," or still in ballistic travel? What is the terminal velocity for a falling bullet? Mythbusters did this one, i forget the outcome.


Other than that, yes.

 

[ccwinstructor]

Bullets falling at terminal velocity do not have enough energy

Bovine Feces! People are killed or serously injured all the time by falling bullets. We've had several in the Baton Rouge area over the past few years. Falling bullets do inflict serious damage. There is no safe direction for warning shots. The only time you should pull the trigger is when your sights are aimed at center mass of a deadly threat. Other than that, keep your booger hook off the bang switch.

Bullets falling at terminal velocity do not have enough energy to kill or seriously injure in nearly all cases. It is when the bullet is fired at an angle significantly off of vertical that enough energy is retained (far more than terminal velocity!) to be a serious threat. In a case in Wisconsin, a .45 pistol bullet was accidentally fired at enough of an angle to travel nearly a mile. The bullet hit the belly of a pregnant woman, caused a severe bruise about 2X6 inches, and a little bleeding that was covered by a couple of bandaids. The bullet fell to the floor after striking the woman and was recovered.

In most cases where severe injury occurs, the bullet is fired closer to horizontal rather than vertical.

 

[Aknazer]

"Falling," or still in ballistic travel? What is the terminal velocity for a falling bullet? Mythbusters did this one, i forget the outcome.


Other than that, yes.

The mythbusters showed that a bullet fired straight up and thus falling at terminal velocity would be lucky to break skin (I think it penetrated only about a half inch into the ground in their tests). They also found multiple cases of injuries and death from bullets fired into the air at an angle.

 

[sraacke]

From http://brgov.com/dept/brpd/news/pdfs/4th_of_July_Safety_Urged.pdf
"On the 4th of July in 2001, 8-year old Seth Pfister was killed after being
struck by a falling bullet."

http://www.wafb.com/story/9604049/t...llet-new-years-eve-night?clienttype=printable
"Police say a 14-year-old girl was hit by a falling bullet.
The teen was taken to Baton Rouge General Mid-City for a minor gunshot wound to the arm."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celebratory_gunfire
"In the U.S. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, about two people die and about 25 more are injured each year from celebratory gunfire on New Year's Eve, the CDC says.[3] Between the years 1985 and 1992, doctors at the King/Drew Medical Center in Los Angeles, California, treated some 118 people for random falling-bullet injuries. Thirty-eight of them died.[7] Kuwaitis celebrating in 1991 at the end of the Gulf War by firing weapons into the air caused 20 deaths from falling bullets."
and
"The non-fiction U.S. cable television program MythBusters on the Discovery Channel covered this topic in Episode 50: "Bullets Fired Up" (original airdate: April 19, 2006). Special-effects experts Adam Savage and Jamie Hyneman conducted a series of experiments to answer the question: "Can celebratory gunfire kill when the bullets fall back to earth?" Using pig carcasses, they worked out the terminal velocity of a falling bullet and had a mixed result, answering the question with all three of the show's possible outcomes: Confirmed, Plausible and Busted.[30] They tested falling bullets by firing them from both a handgun and a rifle, by firing them from an air gun designed to propel them at terminal velocity, and by dropping them in the desert from an instrumented balloon. The "busted" result applied only to bullets traveling on a perfectly vertical trajectory, which tumble on the way down, creating turbulence that reduces terminal velocity. The "plausible" result was cited because they found it was very difficult to fire a bullet in near-ideal vertical trajectory, so bullets were likely to remain spin-stabilized on a ballistic trajectory and fall at a potentially lethal terminal velocity. The "confirmed" result related to their research which verified cases of actual deaths from falling bullets."

So don't fire into the air. Warning shots are for Hollywood.