Hunter: At no time have I called into question your background, training, or education, so why would you do so to mine?
I live in Rochester and have worked in BOTH rural and urban settings. I do not have 'limited' LE ex experience as you allege. My training was done at one of the highest rated academies in the area (The Public Safety Training Center here in Rochester) and I continually train with and for LEO, military and civilian personnel. I train all over NY State and have occasion to chat with many LEO's on various subject matter, including this very one. I'll admit that I do not live in NYC or in the immediate area where the views on gun ownership and CCW are very restrictive, and I have not supposed anythign about your training or where you live as well.
Let's get back to basics here. You have taken what I wrote and misquoted it. In my original post, I wrote:
"You cannot be arrested for Menacing unless you display the handgun -with intent-or malice."
You seem to keep leaving out the " with intent or malice" part when you have replied. So, for the benefit of those watching the post, I have included the entire NY Penal code section that defines the crime of menacing. Everyone please note that only Menacing in the Second Degree deals with the intentional display of a weapon.
S 120.13 Menacing in the first degree.
A person is guilty of menacing in the first degree when he or she
commits the crime of menacing in the second degree and has been
previously convicted of the crime of menacing in the second degree
within the preceding ten years.
Menacing in the first degree is a class E felony.
S 120.14 Menacing in the second degree.
A person is guilty of menacing in the second degree when:
1. He or she intentionally places or attempts to place another person
in reasonable fear of physical injury, serious physical injury or death
by displaying a deadly weapon, dangerous instrument or what appears to
be a pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun, machine gun or other firearm; or
2. He or she repeatedly follows a person or engages in a course of
conduct or repeatedly commits acts over a period of time intentionally
placing or attempting to place another person in reasonable fear of
physical injury, serious physical injury or death; or
3. He or she commits the crime of menacing in the third degree in
violation of that part of a duly served order of protection, or such
order which the defendant has actual knowledge of because he or she was
present in court when such order was issued, pursuant to article eight
of the family court act, section 530.12 of the criminal procedure law,
or an order of protection issued by a court of competent jurisdiction in
another state, territorial or tribal jurisdiction, which directed the
respondent or defendant to stay away from the person or persons on whose
behalf the order was issued.
Menacing in the second degree is a class A misdemeanor.
S 120.15 Menacing in the third degree.
A person is guilty of menacing in the third degree when, by physical
menace, he or she intentionally places or attempts to place another
person in fear of death, imminent serious physical injury or physical
injury.
Menacing in the third degree is a class B misdemeanor.
No where in the Penal law section does it say by accident or anything similar.
My points and discussion have all been centered around whether or not the actions of a firearm being displayed were intentional or unintended. Yes, if someone does display a firearm and another person feels threatened by that display, then someone will most likely get arrested. I fully agree.
If there was no intent and it was an accident, meaning, that there was no active display, then that's all it is - an accident. That's like comparing someone intentionally ramming another car with their own or hitting that other car by accident. One was intentional and the other was not. Yes, someone's going to be cuffed and stuffed in the first case, and in the second, probably not - unless they were doing so by intent.
So....if a motorist gets stopped for a traffic infraction, and they are not concealing their handgun, they could indeed be subject to arrest if the officer/deputy/trooper saw it necessary and if it were warranted. It does not mean that they will, without a doubt, be arrested and charged. That's like telling everyone if you drive over the speed limit you will get a ticket.
If someone gets out of their car for any reason, and they did not put their coat/jacket/long shirt/whatever back on to cover their firearm because they did not want to, then yes, they could be subject to arrest if someone complained, felt threatened, or if a LEO saw them and felt it necessary to do so.
Both situations included a clear intent to not conceal the handgun and there are consequences to those actions - possibly.
In a case where the coat/shirt/whatever is blown open by a gust of wind, or rides up from sitting, or is pulled open when reaching for a wallet....that is an accident. No intent, no malice, no anything other than a purely accidental occurrence.
Don't get me wrong, I do tell people to do whatever you can to keep the handgun concealed at all times. It is your duty to not let anyone know you have a gun. Period. BUT I also tell them that a simple mistake may not cause you a headache, or it could. You never know. I try to get them to think about it and hope they never find out.
I've said my piece, offered my information, and had fun discussing this. But I will not get drawn into a posting argument. It just will not do any good.
Thank you for your information, I hope that the viewers enjoyed our exchange of ideas and thoughts. I will be the one that offer the idea that we probably should agree to disagree and we can leave it at that.
Take care