being followed on foot - really happened last night

[Jungle Work]

That story is why I always carry a cell phone in addation to OC and a pistol. Why spend 10 minutes arguing with an idiot. Call the cops and report a possible drunk and disorderly and assaultive person. Get your report in first. Looks good in front of the Grand Jury and always use the "Magic Words".

Jungle Work

[yerasimos]

Let's say the CHL's reponse stopped with, "this is one fight you can't win," not including the bullet hole threat. The driver of the other car makes the connection and asks if he has a gun. What would you guys say?

I would not even say that there is a fight going on, or make any reference to violence, even obliquely. People (especially non-CHL types) nowadays are so hypersensitive to violence and any reference thereof, and the laws on the books seem to promote this hypersensitivity. Like it or not, we have to observe and abide by these laws, and even tiptoe around them by as much margin as we can muster.

As I see it, a verbal argument takes place in a verbal "battlefield" or context, and requires a verbal solution/conclusion.

[ThunderDownUnder]

One other anecdote from a former student. He( 58 YO white male) , the wife , kid and grandkids went to a high school football playoff game.

...

" I know you can kick my ass but I not going to let it get that far. You'll have a bullet hole in you before that happens." The other driver asked if he had a gun. The CHL nodded affirmative. And then the problems began. Several bystanders and fans of the losing team, all called the police. The police arrived and ended up arrestting the CHL for failure to conceal. They said that his acknowledgement that he had a gun constituted an intentional failure to conceal violation. He was arrested.

Wouldn't he be in more trouble for carrying at a sporting event, and on school grounds?

Yes, good point, but in this case he was only in the parking lot (not considered the premises by definition). He knew not to carry into the game. The parking lot at this facility was ok.
J

[Flatland2D]

I've been thinking a lot about this case. Would it the outcome be any different now that we have HB823? I would think that it could be argued the CHL was protected under HB823 because the requirement for concealment there is "The person is not carrying a handgun in plain view", implying the physical sight of a handgun, not just the "presense" of it. The CHL satisfied every other requirement for "traveling" so could it be possible he would have a good defense post 9/1/2005 (I'm assuming this event happened before HB823).

Also, gigag04's verbal warning saying he is armed shouldn't get him in the same trouble as this CHL. gigag04 never (would have) said what he is armed with. It could be a legal knife, pepper spray, or a stun gun.