PDA

View Full Version : OUC Question


jb7706
11-15-2008, 7:47 PM
How much of your sidearm has to be covered before you are considered to be concealing it?

Take for example an unloaded arm, openly carried. Over the course of the day your shirt comes partially untucked so that it forms a roll over your beltline hiding perhaps the horizontal areas of your weapon. Are you now in trouble? How much leagle wiggle room is there here?

Decoligny
11-15-2008, 8:07 PM
How much of your sidearm has to be covered before you are considered to be concealing it?

Take for example an unloaded arm, openly carried. Over the course of the day your shirt comes partially untucked so that it forms a roll over your beltline hiding perhaps the horizontal areas of your weapon. Are you now in trouble? How much leagle wiggle room is there here?

Don't know, I guess it would depend on the arresting officer. If he says your shirt was covering it and he didn't recognize it as a gun until you moved a certain way, then you would have to fight it in court. I think you would probably lose.

jb7706
11-15-2008, 9:12 PM
So the point is that if it is not readily identifiable as a gun one is legally hosed in that situation? I guess a voice recorder is not enough. An escorting video guy would be required to CYA, and he would need to keep your strong side in frame at all times.

Guess I'll have to wait for Nordyke and CCW reform, cuz ain't nobody wants/needs to see me shirtless in public. :no:

CitaDeL
11-15-2008, 9:15 PM
Allow me to invoke the mantra of those who exclusively advocate licensed concealed carry...


"Open means OPEN..."


If it is concealed partially, it would be safe to presume that it is not immediately recognizable as a weapon, and therefore concealed in violation of 12025.

jb7706
11-15-2008, 9:50 PM
"Open means OPEN..."

I guess my point is that should one run into LEO that has taken the UOC memo that was recently distributed to heart and believes the part that said OC'ers were just looking to entrap a cop so they can sue, one is screwed if said LEO decides that an article of clothing touching your sidearm constitutes concealment.

I got the very distinct impression from an officer I bumped into today (I was not armed and struck up a conversation) that some are not real keen on the "entrapment" thing and may be looking to find an excuse to bust an OC'er. My explanation of the memo and it's inaccuracy in that regard fell on deaf ears.

As was posted earlier, who is the judge gonna believe?