PDA

View Full Version : What's 'Concealed'?


bsim
05-13-2009, 12:57 PM
So in the context of CCW, what is considered 'concealed'. As mentioned in another thread, a wind gust blows a shirt up and 'oops, my barrel peeked out'. Now I'm a bad guy, right?

So what's a guy to do that doesn't want to wear 1) a coat, 2) an ankle holster? Is an 8" prominent bulge (from a gun) acceptable?

How about a thigh holster with fabric velcro-ed over it?

Does it have to be 'invisible'?

Just curious with all the UOC/LOC/CCW talk...

bohoki
05-13-2009, 1:12 PM
yea that is a bit of a quandry


if they claim that you are not concealing your pistol enough and are "printing"

couldn't an open carrier carry the same and say the last guy told a ccw that this was not concealed

Standard
05-13-2009, 1:15 PM
I wondered this too...would a clearly visible sidearm tucked into a IWB holster on the outside of a tucked in shirt be considered concealed? Say you can't see most of the barrel, but the firearm is mostly visible?
Something like the bottom half of this pic
http://www.cerondesigns.com/misc/supertuck.jpg

MasterYong
05-13-2009, 1:43 PM
I don't know if firearms fall under the same rules as other weapons in CA, but when I was younger (too young to own firearms) I collected knives. I did a LOT of research on the legal impacts of carrying a knife (for example, pre 9/11 you were allowed to have a knife on an airplane that had a blade up to 3.5"). As far as knives are concerned, in CA, in the '90s (I haven't checked since then) "concealed" meant that more than 75% of the knife was covered. This only counted for the minimum length of the knife, so the rule would apply to folding knives when they were CLOSED, and fixed-blades when they were, uh, fixed. That way, you could have a pocket knife clipped to your pocket and so long as 25% of the handle was above the pocket it was OK. Likewise a sword would be OK if you have the majority of the sword tucked under your jacket (on your back) so long as the handle was showing and the handle constituted 25% or more of the overall length.

I have NO IDEA if these rules still apply, or more specifically if they apply to firearms AT ALL. Just FYI.

artherd
05-13-2009, 1:53 PM
I wondered this too...would a clearly visible sidearm tucked into a IWB holster on the outside of a tucked in shirt be considered concealed? Say you can't see most of the barrel, but the firearm is mostly visible?
Something like the bottom half of this pic
http://www.cerondesigns.com/misc/supertuck.jpg

Well it will be charged as concealed if you don't have a CCW :) (People v Hale.)

KCM222
05-13-2009, 2:02 PM
I've always wondered how this argument would go down; is there any case law?

It's not consistant that when OC'ing your shirt partially covering your weapon would make it concealed, but when CCW'ing you shirt partially revealing your weapon would be not concealed.

Obivously consistancy (other than consistantly bad) and reason don't have anything to do with gun laws, but it would be nice to have a definition that could apply to both OC and CCW.

bsim
05-13-2009, 2:02 PM
Good to know I'm not the only one wondering! I haven't found anything in the CCW documents I've read the define 'concealed'.

So in my question about how to CCW without (say) a suit jacket, I guess one could use the same type of container discussed in the Locked Container thread. But a person with a CCW could have a loaded and unlocked container?

Glock22Fan
05-13-2009, 2:08 PM
At first sight, it would seem that the only safe way would be to get a CCW and carry unloaded. Then your firarm is legal whether they argue it is concealed or it is open.

But then, some sheriffs will revoke the CCW if they think you exposed your firearm.

Gee, you just can't win in California. But that's their intent, isn't it?

demnogis
05-13-2009, 2:16 PM
Well, the only thing i can say is to check CA penal code 12025 (http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/12025.html).

One thing that is interesting...

(f) Firearms carried openly in belt holsters are not concealed
within the meaning of this section.

:)

Glock22Fan
05-13-2009, 2:22 PM
Well, the only thing i can say is to check CA penal code 12025.

One thing that is interesting...


Quote:
(f) Firearms carried openly in belt holsters are not concealed
within the meaning of this section.

The problem is, how do you defined "openly?"

If your shirt tail blows over it, is it still "openly?"

How about if you take the belt holster and tuck half of it inside your pants?

How about if you are carrying concealed in a belt holster and the wind blows your jacket aside, exposing (part of) the firearm?

This is where the grey areas are.

Standard
05-13-2009, 2:33 PM
Well, the only thing i can say is to check CA penal code 12025 (http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/12025.html).

One thing that is interesting...



:)

That was part of my question as well...in the pic above, with no jacket, is that "openly with a belt holster"? You obviously aren't trying to conceal it, as your shirt is tucked in, and it appears to be in a belt holster.

Untamed1972
05-13-2009, 2:36 PM
Based on the picture below I would say that w/o the shirt covering it is still being openly carried.

To me it seems that "openly carried" would mean that it is readily, visibly appearant that you are carrying a firearm even though part of it is inside your waist band.

Concealed would be just the opposite. If any part of the firearm is exposed such that a normal person can readily see that you are carrying it.....it IS NOT concealed. So it would either need to be covered by a shirt/jacket, or tuck completely below the waist band of your pants such that it is not readly appearent that you're are carrying.

But that's just my opinion as a normal reasonable thinking person.....and has no basis in legal precident or citation.

I wondered this too...would a clearly visible sidearm tucked into a IWB holster on the outside of a tucked in shirt be considered concealed? Say you can't see most of the barrel, but the firearm is mostly visible?
Something like the bottom half of this pic
http://www.cerondesigns.com/misc/supertuck.jpg

Glock22Fan
05-13-2009, 2:53 PM
Based on the picture below I would say that w/o the shirt covering it is still being openly carried.

To me it seems that "openly carried" would mean that it is readily, visibly appearant that you are carrying a firearm even though part of it is inside your waist band.

Concealed would be just the opposite. If any part of the firearm is exposed such that a normal person can readily see that you are carrying it.....it IS NOT concealed. So it would either need to be covered by a shirt/jacket, or tuck completely below the waist band of your pants such that it is not readly appearent that you're are carrying.

But that's just my opinion as a normal reasonable thinking person.....and has no basis in legal precident or citation.

The problem is that you are thinking as a rational person.

Lawyers can equally dextrously argue either side of an argument, depending upon who is paying them and, if they are D.A.'s, what their political beliefs are.

So, whereas one lawyer might well say it is concealed, another might well say it is open. It's going to be up to the beliefs of the jury and judge which it is.

After all, five of the Supremes said that the 2nd meant an individual right (as we all believe). The other four disagreed. To us, the answer is self evident and obvious.

So, I repeat, the only "obvious" facts are that a fully exposed holstered firearm in an outside the waistband belt is "openly displayed" and a fully concealed firearm (absolutely none of it visible) is obviously concealed. Anything between those extremes could (IMHO) get you into trouble.

Untamed1972
05-13-2009, 3:03 PM
The problem is that you are thinking as a rational person..

Yeah...I know...it's a bad habit. I need to work on that. LOL

Lawyers can equally dextrously argue either side of an argument, depending upon who is paying them and, if they are D.A.'s, what their political beliefs are.

So, whereas one lawyer might well say it is concealed, another might well say it is open. It's going to be up to the beliefs of the jury and judge which it is.

Yeah....I think anything can be argued in court (like spilling coffee on myself is someone elses fault). I just have a hard time seeing how a DA could successfully argue that when it is readily appearant that you are carrying a firearm that it is still concealed. But then again....alotta crap gets thru court that utterly amazes me. But in the absence of more legal definition in the PC, all one can do is operate reasonably and hope that's enough.

ZirconJohn
05-13-2009, 3:05 PM
License to Carry Concealed (CCW) is your responsibility to conceal your firearm, concealed is concealed. Not 20%, not 10%, not 50%... but rather 100% concealed.

And certainly NOT because UOC law indicates partial covered firearm is concealed, therefore partial unconcealed CCW is good to go... DO NOT misconstrue the meaning of CCW with whatever UOC laws represent.

The idea here is specifically to maintain public tranquility, and avoid visual annoyance.

As a holder of a CCW, one does not want Jane Q. Public calling 911 on me because the proverbial "he's got a GUN!" complaint.

Y'all are complicating a very simple rule of thumb here, whereas concealed is concealed is simplicity.

I DO NOT want Mr. & Mrs Q. Public to know I carry a gun. I report to you the truth; when one carries a concealed firearm you carry it every day, day in and day out. The only time I do not have a firearm on me is... well there isn't. There is always a firearm either on me, or near me 24/7/365.

When you carry in public; in time you will forget about having it on you and yet know it's there... somewhat like wearing a watch, ring, or car keys in your pocket.

Untamed1972
05-13-2009, 3:14 PM
Think of it this way.......exchange the gun for something else, perhaps valuable that you don't want someone to know you have on you. Lets say cash. You just sold a used car and the guy paid you $3000 in cash and you're going to take it to the bank. You would COMPLETELY conceal the cash would you not? Fully concealed in pocket, purse, money belt whatever. Would you stick in your pocket with half of the wad sticking out of the top of your pocket and consider that concealed?

If anyone at a casual glance can determine the contents of your pocket it is not concealed.

Sometimes I think we choose not to see the simplicity of certain things because we want to look for a loophole around something we dont like. Not that there is anything wrong with that because sometimes there is a work-around (OLLs for example). But sometimes there isn't. If it is at least partially visible and appearant what you're carrying....it isn't concealed.

gunsmith
05-13-2009, 3:17 PM
I agree with most of zirconjohns statement, having ccw'd for a long time it is natural, even when I notice someone else packing, most others don't (including LE).
However, I hope we can make LOC legal to prevent the silly stuff that has happened in other shall issue states, with people getting arrested for printing, I sold my small concealable guns and have a glock 22 ready for CA ccw, but sometimes would like to open carry for convenience sake, or if I must ccw at least not get arrested because I was reaching for the top self and someone see's my piece

bsim
05-13-2009, 3:20 PM
That's exactly the point John - what's concealed?

Similar to the examples above, is a 6" Colt Python in an external belt holster but stuffed in a tube sock 'concealed'? No part of the weapon is visible, yet I would not have a hard time 'believeing' that there's a weapon in there.

Yet according to what I've read, it's 'legal'.

coyotek
05-13-2009, 3:21 PM
I was at a BMW dealership recently and a guy was there getting his bike serviced. I knew from the conversation this guy was an off duty CHP officer, although he was in street clothes. He was carrying a concealed pistol but the bottom inch or so of the barrel part of the holster was exposed below his shirt. I guess I thought when they were out of uniform carrying concealed they had the same duty to really conceal as the rest of us ccw'rs. :confused:

ZirconJohn
05-13-2009, 4:11 PM
That's exactly the point John - what's concealed?

Similar to the examples above, is a 6" Colt Python in an external belt holster but stuffed in a tube sock 'concealed'? No part of the weapon is visible, yet I would not have a hard time 'believeing' that there's a weapon in there.

Yet according to what I've read, it's 'legal'.

Yes, IMO that is concealed and law says so too. However, would a 6" Python stuffed in your ankle (sorry, I'm laughing)... serious tho; a 6" Python stuffed in your ankle, completely concealed is still going to [what they call] 'print'.

Poor choice of firearm to try and conceal in your ankle. Now, they call a cop for what looks like what may be a gun under your pant leg and you lose your CCW License.

Before you strap a 6" Python to your ankle, ask yourself a question 'do I want to lose my CCW?' - Because you are going to lose your CCW!

I was at a BMW dealership recently and a guy was there getting his bike serviced. I knew from the conversation this guy was an off duty CHP officer, although he was in street clothes. He was carrying a concealed pistol but the bottom inch or so of the barrel part of the holster was exposed below his shirt. I guess I thought when they were out of uniform carrying concealed they had the same duty to really conceal as the rest of us ccw'rs. :confused:

Yes; that is correct... in that concealed is concealed, and any visible part of a firearm is visual annoyance as follows:

An elderly woman sees a gun barrel protruding from under a shirt, she calls the Police. Police arrive guns drawn, take the subject down. Now, all that because an off duty Police Officer DID NOT 'concealed is concealed' his 'off duty' firearm!

Does the off duty Police Officer want that? NO! Does a private citizen CCW holder want that? HALE NO!

You could have informed him of what you see, ask if he is LEO, he replies yes, and shows his badge... all done, simple. However, that is something that should not ever happen. Police officers know better... and if not, you may decide to get Officers name and report him because he's just playing tough-guy and that is just unacceptable LE practice.

bsim
05-13-2009, 4:55 PM
Yes, IMO that is concealed and law says so too. However, would a 6" Python stuffed in your ankle (sorry, I'm laughing)... serious tho; a 6" Python stuffed in your ankle, completely concealed is still going to [what they call] 'print'.

Poor choice of firearm to try and conceal in your ankle. Now, they call a cop for what looks like what may be a gun under your pant leg and you lose your CCW License.

Before you strap a 6" Python to your ankle, ask yourself a question 'do I want to lose my CCW?' - Because you are going to lose your CCW!I know, the visual is pretty goofy. But I can't find anywhere that says a weapon "print" (which is the gist of my original question) is a no-no...

ZirconJohn
05-13-2009, 6:00 PM
Ya-know, I just got off the phone with a friend and local LEO.

This what he said; if a citizen calls 911 and reports man with a gun; either print, or visible (same thing in LE book).

LEO said "doesn't matter if report is print, or [actually] visible... LE is dispatched in numbers for back-up, and the subject (you) are placed face down at gun-point for officer safety!"

Then their routine field investigation, followed-up with written report... since a firearm constitutes an 'incident'.

Your responsibility as a CCW holder is to NOT allow that to happen.

Only a tuff-guy with identity issues would want people to know he is CCW'ing, and the CCW community doesn't want/need tough-guys with identity issues.

Wulf
05-13-2009, 6:55 PM
In carry class what I was taught is that it "must not be readily discernible as a weapon."

I think its tough to get in legal trouble as long as you avoid being so blatant that you run afoul the "rude and threatening" aspect of a brandishing charge. If somebody sees a bulge and makes a lucky guess or your shirt gets blown up, as long as you were reasonable steps at reasonable concealment and nobody can say you made to particular effort at being rude or threatening you're not likely to be prosecuted (except in Frisco).

That doesn't mean you might not have to get proned out or that your Sheriff might get tired of seeing reports about you and pull your permit. But I dont think you'd get in legal trouble.

CitaDeL
05-13-2009, 7:03 PM
Ya-know, I just got off the phone with a friend and local LEO.

This what he said; if a citizen calls 911 and reports man with a gun; either print, or visible (same thing in LE book).

LEO said "doesn't matter if report is print, or [actually] visible... LE is dispatched in numbers for back-up, and the subject (you) are placed face down at gun-point for officer safety!"

Then their routine field investigation, followed-up with written report... since a firearm constitutes an 'incident'.

Your responsibility as a CCW holder is to NOT allow that to happen.

Only a tuff-guy with identity issues would want people to know he is CCW'ing, and the CCW community doesn't want/need tough-guys with identity issues.

I was detained by police in August 2007 in response of a report of MWAG. I was openly carrying an unloaded sidearm in incorporated city limits. Found to be lawful, I was released (without having been felony proned or for that matter handcuffed...) and upon my PRA request there was no 'incident' recorded or a report to read.

Your responsibility as a licensee is to abide by the restrictions imprinted on the license to carry you are issued. If a license is revoked for obeying the law, then we have a problem.

I got to tell you- your final comments are a little disturbing. Only a 'tuff' guy wants people to know he's "CCWing"? What really is the difference whether or not the firearm is concealed? Do you believe open carriers are a bunch of swinging d!cks too- Are they 'tuff' guys with identity issues? Not all who are open about carrying firearms have chip on their shoulder...but your comments suggest absolutes.

Fact of the matter is, licensing isnt all its cracked up to be and the "CCW" community really needs to be honest with what having a license to carry means. It means losing your privacy. It means surrendering your 2nd, 4th, 5th, 9th, and 14th amendment rights upon demand. It means allowing yourself to be regulated by an authority which has no obligation to protect you. Contrary to what pro-gunners believe- it is more gun control, not less. The "CCW" community doesnt need any of that either.

ZirconJohn
05-13-2009, 7:28 PM
I was detained by police in August 2007 in response of a report of MWAG. I was openly carrying an unloaded sidearm in incorporated city limits. Found to be lawful, I was released (without having been felony proned or for that matter handcuffed...) and upon my PRA request there was no 'incident' recorded or a report to read.

Your responsibility as a licensee is to abide by the restrictions imprinted on the license to carry you are issued. If a license is revoked for obeying the law, then we have a problem.

I got to tell you- your final comments are a little disturbing. Only a 'tuff' guy wants people to know he's "CCWing"? What really is the difference whether or not the firearm is concealed? Do you believe open carriers are a bunch of swinging d!cks too- Are they 'tuff' guys with identity issues? Not all who are open about carrying firearms have chip on their shoulder...but your comments suggest absolutes.

Fact of the matter is, licensing isnt all its cracked up to be and the "CCW" community really needs to be honest with what having a license to carry means. It means losing your privacy. It means surrendering your 2nd, 4th, 5th, 9th, and 14th amendment rights upon demand. It means allowing yourself to be regulated by an authority which has no obligation to protect you. Contrary to what pro-gunners believe- it is more gun control, not less. The "CCW" community doesnt need any of that either.

Thank you... please relax, take it easy. My comments are not personal, they are only comments and you decided to take them personal.

My comments are simply suggesting use of common sense, and nothing else. And I too would like... love to LOC, however LOC is not legal at this time and that my friend is absolute absolutely. Therefore, I get the next best thing in the form of CCW (Thank you Mendocino County Sheriff Tom Allman). Sorry, I am not prone to breaking the law.

In closing, I would like to say that carrying a firearm must humble a person if it does anything, and NOT the other way around.

Now, please take it easy okay... we are all friends here.

Thank you,

GuyW
05-14-2009, 1:53 PM
A CalGun member / LEO has posted a CA BAJI instruction on the definition of a concealed gun.

IIRC, a gun is not concealed if it is "substantially" visible. That means the statement that a shirt falling over a gun openly carried on the belt, is FUD.
.

DDT
05-14-2009, 2:55 PM
LEO said "doesn't matter if report is print, or [actually] visible... LE is dispatched in numbers for back-up, and the subject (you) are placed face down at gun-point for officer safety!"


This response is about as unconstitutional as is humanly possible. I truly hope that the LEO you spoke to was blowing smoke up your skirt or that he is in no position to make decisions in his department.

demnogis
05-14-2009, 3:28 PM
It's the response any person who is carrying (OC/CC) can expect if your firearm is noticed and the LE is called.

This response is about as unconstitutional as is humanly possible. I truly hope that the LEO you spoke to was blowing smoke up your skirt or that he is in no position to make decisions in his department.

CnCFunFactory
05-14-2009, 3:34 PM
I was at a BMW dealership recently and a guy was there getting his bike serviced. I knew from the conversation this guy was an off duty CHP officer, although he was in street clothes. He was carrying a concealed pistol but the bottom inch or so of the barrel part of the holster was exposed below his shirt. I guess I thought when they were out of uniform carrying concealed they had the same duty to really conceal as the rest of us ccw'rs. :confused:

Ah yes, ye ole brass pass. Even if somebody called on him he's a "good ole boy". NOTHING is going to happen to him and therefore he could have the thing staple gunned to his forehead and when the units arrive to confront him it'll be like a class reunion, all high fives and *** slaps.

MudCamper
05-14-2009, 3:38 PM
There is no clear definition in the law.

But remember People V Hale held that a concealed magazine was enough to convict for 12025 even though the handgun was not concealed.

Best to be very very sure one way or the other, depending on what you are doing.

Licensed CCW? 100% concealment.

UOC? OWB holster outside of all garments.

DDT
05-14-2009, 3:38 PM
It's the response any person who is carrying (OC/CC) can expect if your firearm is noticed and the LE is called.

First of all I think you'll find that there have been a number of CalGunners who open carry and have had many interactions with LEOs after a MWAG call and not been face down being unarmed at gun point.

Second, there is no way the courts will find that a MWAG phone call is enough PC to detain someone in this manner. Interact with, ask about firearms, perform a "Terry patdown," do a 12031 check if open carrying are all within his rights but to put the person facedown and search him will very likely wind the cop up in deep water.

MasterYong
05-14-2009, 3:48 PM
It's the response any person who is carrying (OC/CC) can expect if your firearm is noticed and the LE is called.

I don't suppose you've been here: http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum12/

...because there are a LOT of stories about folks OCing, getting the cops called, and NOT having them draw-down. I don't OC myself because I am a little concerned about eating pavement and I've even called the local LE agencies and they are pretty tight-lipped about how one of their officers would be trained to respond. Either way, it appears that the majority of folks in CA that OC don't get any flak for it, as the majority of bystanders assumes that by so blatantly carrying that you must be a LEO, and if the cops come by they politely disarm you for a minute or two then let you go.

I do agree that there's a pretty big risk with OC, however, of having an asphalt-sandwich.

demnogis
05-14-2009, 3:49 PM
DDT, I have been detained multiple times while OCing as well. I consider myself an optimist, but am usually preparing dialogue should the worst happen. One event so far has been multiple units "swat style" guns drawn, handcuffed, searched, detained for hours -- the whole shebang.

My comment was not saying that every interaction will be like that. Only that you should expect the worst but hope for the best.

MasterYong... I hope you've seen my posts there as well :)

MasterYong
05-14-2009, 4:12 PM
DDT, I have been detained multiple times while OCing as well. I consider myself an optimist, but am usually preparing dialogue should the worst happen. One event so far has been multiple units "swat style" guns drawn, handcuffed, searched, detained for hours -- the whole shebang.

My comment was not saying that every interaction will be like that. Only that you should expect the worst but hope for the best.

MasterYong... I hope you've seen my posts there as well :)

I suppose I misunderstood the context of your comment, then! :)

I'm trying to work up the nerve to UOC- but I do live in Humboldt County which puts one in a bit of a quandry: all the cops are gun nuts and don't care how many you have or what you do with them but most of the residents are tree-hugging flower-children that wouldn't think twice to make a MWAG call. The way I see it the cops will probably be easier on me than many other counties but I've got a pretty high chance of an MWAG call taking place due to the sheeple around here.... oh well. :cool2:

4D5auto
05-14-2009, 4:25 PM
Ya-know, I just got off the phone with a friend and local LEO.

This what he said; if a citizen calls 911 and reports man with a gun; either print, or visible (same thing in LE book).

LEO said "doesn't matter if report is print, or [actually] visible... LE is dispatched in numbers for back-up, and the subject (you) are placed face down at gun-point for officer safety!"

Then their routine field investigation, followed-up with written report... since a firearm constitutes an 'incident'.

Your responsibility as a CCW holder is to NOT allow that to happen.

Only a tuff-guy with identity issues would want people to know he is CCW'ing, and the CCW community doesn't want/need tough-guys with identity issues.


Not even close or true in my case!

I was in a traffic accident in Fremont some time back, the LEO approached the driver side window to see me clear the chamber of my .45, as it was on the front seat. My head was turned away from him and didn't see nor hear him approach. When I turned, I saw the look on his face, jaw dropped. I immidietly told him I have a CCW. His response was, Good, I thought my day was going to end bad. It was mid morning! He requested my weapon and CCW. I gave it to him and it was returned to me within 10 minutes. I wasn't slammed to the ground nor did Fremont SWAT circle me.

4D5auto
05-14-2009, 4:41 PM
BTW, what's the point of open carry?? I mean, it's absolutely worthless! Why?? Unless it makes you feel good for whatever reason... If you want to carry with out a CCW, you just do it. Should you get called on it, it's a Misdemeanor the first time, heck, so is the second time, if the judge sees fit. A traffic ticket is a Misdemeanor.

mej16489
05-14-2009, 4:43 PM
What would you be charged with if:
1) You have a valid CCW
1a) There is no restriction printed on the license pertaining to 'must be concealed'
1b) Your carry weapon is listed on the license

AND

2) You are carrying an exposed and loaded pistol

OR

3) You inadvertantly expose your concealed and loaded pistol

GuyW
05-14-2009, 4:49 PM
If you want to carry with out a CCW, you just do it. Should you get called on it, it's a Misdemeanor the first time

It's 2 misdemeanors: loaded gun, and concealed. And a fine, and lost gun.

A traffic ticket is a Misdemeanor.

Traffic tickets are mostly infractions...
.

N6ATF
05-14-2009, 4:53 PM
What would you be charged with if:
1) You have a valid CCW
1a) There is no restriction printed on the license pertaining to 'must be concealed'
1b) Your carry weapon is listed on the license

AND

2) You are carrying an exposed and loaded pistol

OR

3) You inadvertantly expose your concealed and loaded pistol

Your CCW could be revoked and the Sheriff would not suffer any consequences because once you are sheriff you cannot be fired or personally have to pay civil damages for treason, espionage, gross malfeasance, scores of civil rights violations, being evil, or any lesser crime against humanity (see Sandra Hutchens), and incumbents rarely lose.

ZirconJohn
05-14-2009, 4:56 PM
Hey, okay... sure, perhaps a little overboard with my statement. I am not a big shot talker, and I know how to say 'my bad'.

UOC will not get you slammed, very often if officer knows what the hale they are doing. Now, ya gotta admit, not all officers know what they are doing!

There, okay... I'm okay, y'all okay!

There are many officers, deputies, CHP officers here in small town USA of Ukiah, and I know the vast majority of them and they know me.

If I am UOC, (I don't)... if my CC shirt hikes a little and Joe citizen calls 911 report MWAG... cop shows up and knows me, NO... I will not be slammed etc.

Look, this topic is simple as MudCamper so eloquently stated as follows:

"Licensed CCW? 100% concealment."

"UOC? OWB holster outside of all garments."

Do that, and only that... and this conversation is moot!

What is so difficult about understanding and following fundamental CCW, or UOC lawful abiding protocol? What?

MudCamper
05-14-2009, 5:01 PM
BTW, what's the point of open carry?? I mean, it's absolutely worthless! Why?? Unless it makes you feel good for whatever reason...

If you really want to know: http://www.californiaopencarry.org/faq.html

If you want to carry with out a CCW, you just do it. Should you get called on it, it's a Misdemeanor the first time, heck, so is the second time, if the judge sees fit. A traffic ticket is a Misdemeanor.

You are advocating breaking the law. I believe that is a violation of this site's rules.

N6ATF
05-14-2009, 5:12 PM
UOC will not get you slammed, very often if officer knows what the hale they are doing. Now, ya gotta admit, not all officers know what they are doing!

No I don't. It's called feigned ignorance as a defense.

Printing your oath of office and the Constitution on toilet paper is what most politicians aspire to.

SubstanceP
05-14-2009, 5:31 PM
When you carry in public; in time you will forget about having it on you and yet know it's there... somewhat like wearing a watch, ring, or car keys in your pocket.

I've forgotten what it's like to wear a watch since I came to this fascist state. :)

4D5auto
05-14-2009, 5:42 PM
If you really want to know: http://www.californiaopencarry.org/faq.html



You are advocating breaking the law. I believe that is a violation of this site's rules.



Not at all!

You chose to read something more than what I was trying to convey. Having a CCW in this state is a privilege and I am lucky to live in an area of this state that allows law abiding citizens to carry. My license at times had restrictions stamped on the back, that lasted many years, can't really remember. The past few times I've renewed, they no longer stamp any restrictions. This may be due in part to the CA Penal Code stating, that all CCW Permits are to be uniform through out the state. By stamping a list of about 15 restrictions, no longer made it uniform, unless all issuing counties had the same stamp.

obeygiant
05-14-2009, 7:48 PM
Think of it this way.......exchange the gun for something else, perhaps valuable that you don't want someone to know you have on you. Lets say cash. You just sold a used car and the guy paid you $3000 in cash and you're going to take it to the bank. You would COMPLETELY conceal the cash would you not? Fully concealed in pocket, purse, money belt whatever. Would you stick in your pocket with half of the wad sticking out of the top of your pocket and consider that concealed?

If anyone at a casual glance can determine the contents of your pocket it is not concealed.

Sometimes I think we choose not to see the simplicity of certain things because we want to look for a loophole around something we dont like. Not that there is anything wrong with that because sometimes there is a work-around (OLLs for example). But sometimes there isn't. If it is at least partially visible and appearant what you're carrying....it isn't concealed.

:thumbsup: well said.

bsim
05-14-2009, 10:34 PM
"Licensed CCW? 100% concealment."Actually that's the question here, not the answer.

Is a "bulge" concealed?
If no part of the firearm is visible, yet your shirt is tucked in OVER your inside waistband holster, is that concealed?
Is a full frame 45 in a tube sock hanging from a neck lanyard concealed?
Is a 38 snubnose wrapped with tinfoil and duct taped to a thigh concealed?

I still haven't found, read, seen, or heard anything that defines concealed.

Using the money example, what if the $3k is in ones? I think that bulge in your pocket makes me suspicious you have a wad of cash, but I don't see any actual bills. Still not concealed?

ZirconJohn
05-15-2009, 2:17 AM
Actually that's the question here, not the answer.

Is a "bulge" concealed?
If no part of the firearm is visible, yet your shirt is tucked in OVER your inside waistband holster, is that concealed?
Is a full frame 45 in a tube sock hanging from a neck lanyard concealed?
Is a 38 snubnose wrapped with tinfoil and duct taped to a thigh concealed?

I still haven't found, read, seen, or heard anything that defines concealed.

Using the money example, what if the $3k is in ones? I think that bulge in your pocket makes me suspicious you have a wad of cash, but I don't see any actual bills. Still not concealed?

Uhhhhhhh, well junior... we have gone full circle; and you know what that means dont'cha..., bow-bow-bow... rrrrrrrrubber biscuits! :D

TheBundo
05-15-2009, 3:20 AM
This is so STUPID, since in many states, you can do either or both. I can't believe we are tolerating this crap. I went to Wyoming recently, and wore my 357 into Walmart, and the pharmacist showed me her CCW and said to be careful if the bank inside of WalMart was open, because having a guninside of a bank was prohibitied, and some liberals considered anywhere inside a WalMart that had a bank inside, while the bank was open, to be a bank. I laughed, and told her about the rule in CA that if you had an UNLOADED gun on your hip walking your dog in a "school zone" (even in the middle of the summer in the middle of the night)...............

She couldn't believe it. Neither can I.............

I then had it loaded on my dash everywhere, including driving through Burger King drive-throughs. We must have lost our minds here in CA........

We had better fight this stuff hard in the courts, or be ready to move from what once was, on it's own, a great economic power (CA), but is quickly becoming a cesspool of stupidity spiraling into economic collapse.

4D5auto
05-15-2009, 3:55 PM
Concealed equals, not visible!

leadchucker
05-16-2009, 12:47 AM
O.K. So I've seen comments like this more than once:

1) "I've been carrying for XX years and have never been made."
2) "Ever since I started carrying I have become more observant of my surroundings, and have even been able to make another CCW's piece a couple of times."

...which make me have to wonder....

Re: 1) How can you possibly know that? Especially in light of #2)?

and, what I'd really like to know...

Re: 2) How concealed is "concealed" enough considering there are trained and observant spotters out there?!

++++++++++++++++++++++++

I just started carrying and am really curious what is reasonably concealed, and what would get me in trouble with my issuing authority. Do I need to do a fashion show down at the Sheriff's Office to find out what is O.K. and what isn't?

For example, I prefer to tuck my shirts but the holster clip will show on the outside of my belt. I figure I could camouflage it with a cell phone or camera case, which could hold a speedloader or two. But then, what about the bulge under my belt? How big a bulge is too much? (Colt J[medium]-frame snubbie) If a fellow CCW holder could spot it, why couldn't a LEO also spot it? Let alone a bad guy?

So, "totally concealed" is self evident as to definition, though practically speaking isn't really 100% possible 100% of the time, but what, exactly, would be considered "reasonably concealed" vs. "irresponsibly concealed" as far as bulges and holster clips, etc. in the eyes of an average Sheriff's Department investigating a MWAG?

jlchavis0844
05-16-2009, 8:40 AM
So, I repeat, the only "obvious" facts are that a fully exposed holstered firearm in an outside the waistband belt is "openly displayed" and a fully concealed firearm (absolutely none of it visible) is obviously concealed. Anything between those extremes could (IMHO) get you into trouble.

Don't forget about the magazine and open carry.

"... there was an appellate case in 1974, People v. Hale, that ruled this way. It ruled that although the firearm in question was not concealed, the magazine was, and that only partial concealment is still concealment, and that the magazine was an "essential component" of the firearm. The logic is tortured beyond belief, but it currently could be used as a persuasive precedent in court. One way to avoid this pitfall is to carry your magazines in belt holsters, so that they match the 12025(f) language of "carried openly in belt holsters". Another option would be to keep an unloaded magazine in the firearm, thereby "completing" the firearm, and invalidating the asinine "essential component" logic."

4D5auto
05-16-2009, 8:54 AM
IMO many are making mountains out of mole hills. If you legally posess a CCW, carry it concealed. Doesn't matter if there is a print, so long as it's concealed. Doesn't matter, if at times, your shirt tail flaps around and it's partially exposed, it's concealed. In warm weather you need to change attire to accommodate.

demnogis
05-16-2009, 11:37 AM
I know it may sound dumb, but you could use a fanny pack. An old customer of mine was an employee for law enforcement and when he was off-duty he kept his personal firearm in a fanny pack wherever he went. He usually had his daughter with him too. Unless you asked him what was in there, how could anyone know? They're used for most anything, especially when you've got a kid with you.

I just started carrying and am really curious what is reasonably concealed, and what would get me in trouble with my issuing authority. Do I need to do a fashion show down at the Sheriff's Office to find out what is O.K. and what isn't?

For example, I prefer to tuck my shirts but the holster clip will show on the outside of my belt. I figure I could camouflage it with a cell phone or camera case, which could hold a speedloader or two. But then, what about the bulge under my belt? How big a bulge is too much? (Colt J[medium]-frame snubbie) If a fellow CCW holder could spot it, why couldn't a LEO also spot it? Let alone a bad guy?

pullnshoot25
05-16-2009, 11:54 AM
BTW, what's the point of open carry?? I mean, it's absolutely worthless! Why?? Unless it makes you feel good for whatever reason... If you want to carry with out a CCW, you just do it. Should you get called on it, it's a Misdemeanor the first time, heck, so is the second time, if the judge sees fit. A traffic ticket is a Misdemeanor.

A traffic ticket is an infraction.

Open carry is not worthless. You simply have forgotten how to be a citizen.

While I agree that sometimes life warrants carrying a concealed weapon (even illegally) I try not to break too many laws, however asinine they are.

Theseus
05-16-2009, 12:26 PM
A traffic ticket is an infraction.

Open carry is not worthless. You simply have forgotten how to be a citizen.

While I agree that sometimes life warrants carrying a concealed weapon (even illegally) I try not to break too many laws, however asinine they are.

[sarcastic Irish accent] Aren't you the lords little angel.
:angel:
[/accent & sarcasm]

As I was told by an officer, even something as innocent as a shirt laying on the pistol grip can be, in the officers opinion, concealment.

Of course when I told him that I disagree and I think his DA would too he didn't pursue it any more. I was told by a lawyer...I will not mention the name, but it rhymes with noose... That there is a set of jury instructions for concealment cases that basically suggests that the concealment must be "substantial". I am sure there is other important language in it, but I don't remember all of it.

Also, I think that if you look at the language of 12025 and with (f) Firearms carried openly in belt holsters are not concealed within the meaning of this section.

I am still interested as to why they felt the need to clarify that THIS is not concealment. I think the intent might have been to make clear that perhaps someone wearing a holster is not likely a criminal with criminal intent? I don't know how to do it, but I would like to see what they discussed when fashioning this line and the true purpose.

4D5auto
05-16-2009, 1:01 PM
[QUOTE=pullnshoot25;2487951]A traffic ticket is an infraction.

Open carry is not worthless. You simply have forgotten how to be a citizen.

QUOTE]

First, I will start by:laugh:


Although a traffic ticket is a Infraction, it is classified a Misdemeanor!

When you Open Carry, are you allowed to carry ammo on your person, somewhere else on your person?

Librarian
05-16-2009, 1:02 PM
That there is a set of jury instructions for concealment cases that basically suggests that the concealment must be "substantial".

Indeed there is - http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/jury/criminaljuryinstructions/ but you have to download the 7.5 meg .PDF.

C. CARRYING A FIREARM
(i) Concealed
2520. Carrying Concealed Firearm on Person (Pen. Code,
§ 12025(a)(2) & (f))
The defendant is charged [in Count ] with unlawfully
carrying a concealed firearm on (his/her) person [in violation of
Penal Code section 12025].
To prove that the defendant is guilty of this crime, the People must
prove that:
1. The defendant carried on (his/her) person a firearm
capable of being concealed on the person;
2. The defendant knew that (he/she) was carrying a firearm;
AND
3. It was substantially concealed on the defendant’s person.
[A firearm capable of being concealed on the person is any device
designed to be used as a weapon, from which a projectile is
expelled or discharged through a barrel by the force of an
explosion or other form of combustion and that has a barrel less
than 16 inches in length. [A firearm capable of being concealed on
the person also includes any device that has a barrel 16 inches or
more in length that is designed to be interchanged with a barrel
less than 16 inches in length.] [A firearm also includes any rocket,
rocket-propelled projectile launcher, or similar device containing
any explosive or incendiary material, whether or not the device is
designed for emergency or distress signaling purposes.]]
[The term firearm capable of being concealed on the person is
defined in another instruction.]
[A firearm does not need to be in working order if it was designed
to shoot and appears capable of shooting.]
[Firearms carried openly in belt holsters are not concealed.]

<Defense: Statutory Exemption>
[The defendant did not unlawfully carry a concealed firearm if
<insert defense from Pen. Code, § 12025.5, 12026,
12026.1, 12026.2, or 12027>. The People have the burden of
proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant unlawfully
carried a concealed firearm. If the People have not met this
burden, you must find the defendant not guilty of this crime.]
New January 2006
BENCH NOTES
Instructional Duty
The court has a sua sponte duty to give this instruction defining the elements
of the crime. If the defendant is charged with any of the sentencing factors in
Penal Code section 12025(b), the court must also give the appropriate
instruction from CALCRIM Nos. 2540–2546. (People v. Hall (1998) 67
Cal.App.4th 128, 135 [79 Cal.Rptr.2d 690].)
The court should give the bracketed definition of “firearm capable of being
concealed on the person” unless the court has already given the definition in
other instructions. In such cases, the court may give the bracketed sentence
stating that the term is defined elsewhere.
Penal Code section 12025(a) prohibits carrying a concealed “pistol, revolver,
or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.” Penal Code
section 12001(a)(1) provides a single definition for this class of weapons.
Thus, the committee has chosen to use solely the all-inclusive phrase
“firearm capable of being concealed on the person.”
Defenses—Instructional Duty
Exemptions and a justification for carrying a concealed firearm are stated in
Penal Code sections 12025.5, 12026, 12026.1, 12026.2, and 12027. If
sufficient evidence has been presented to raise a reasonable doubt about the
existence of a legal basis for the defendant’s actions, the court has a sua
sponte duty to give the bracketed instruction on the defense. (See People v.
Mower (2002) 28 Cal.4th 457, 478–481 [122 Cal.Rptr.2d 326, 49 P.3d 1067]
[discussing affirmative defenses generally and the burden of proof].) Insert the appropriate language in the bracketed paragraph that begins, “The defendant did not unlawfully . . . .”

CALCRIM No. 2520 WEAPONS
... but 'substantially concealed' is not defined in the Instructions, referring to Substantial Concealment. People v. Wharton (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 72,
75 [6 Cal.Rptr.2d 673] [interpreting Pen. Code, § 12020(a)(4)]; People v.
Fuentes (1976) 64 Cal.App.3d 953, 955 [134 Cal.Rptr. 885] [same].
Wharton says [1] Defendant contends there is insufficient evidence of concealment because the tip of the knife was protruding from his pocket. We disagree.and references Fuentes. Fuentes says Fuentes contends that there was no evidence to show that the dirk was concealed and argues that "[t]here is not even a suggestion in the record that the dirk was ever anywhere but in plain sight." The dirk obviously was not in plain sight. This is not a situation where the weapon was carried openly in a sheath or attached to a belt. fn. 1 The dirk was in Fuentes' waistband. [1] The mere fact that some portion of the handle may have been visible makes it no less a concealed weapon. A defendant need not be totally successful in concealing a dirk to be guilty of violation of Penal Code section 12020, subdivision (a). and then refers to the infamous People vs Hale and People v May, which says [1] The conclusion of the trial court to the effect that, when the pocket opened giving a view of the gun it could not be said to be concealed is unsupportable. Under the holding of the trial court a defendant could immunize himself from prosecution on a charge of possessing a concealed weapon merely by intentionally or unintentionally permitting an occasional glimpse of the weapon which otherwise would remain concealed from sight.

In People v. Koehn, 25 Cal.App.3d 799 [102 Cal.Rptr. 102], an officer lawfully stopped defendant's car. Thereafter, he looked through the windshield and observed the handle of a pistol lying on the floorboard. The officer removed the pistol which turned out to be loaded. The court held that the officer had probable cause to arrest defendant for violating section 12025 of the Penal Code. By analogy the weapon carried in defendant's pocket was likewise a concealed weapon within the meaning of section 12025 of the Penal Code.

In People v. Tarkington, 273 Cal.App.2d 466 [78 Cal.Rptr. 149], a deputy sheriff during a routine bar check observed what appeared to be an outline of a handgun under appellant's shirt. The deputy felt the object which appeared to be a gun then removed it from the appellant's shirt. It was a loaded .32 pistol. In holding that the weapon was concealed, the court stated at page 469: "We note, also, that appellant's ineptness in accomplishing complete concealment of the weapon did not relieve him from commission of the crime in the presence of the officers. (See People v. Linden, 185 Cal.App.2d 752 [8 Cal.Rptr. 640]; People v. McFarren, 155 Cal.App.2d 383 [317 P.2d 998].)"

The instructions do say Gun in Unlocked Carrying Case Is Concealed
“If a firearm is transported in a vehicle in such a manner as to be invisible
unless its carrying case is opened, it is concealed in the ordinary and usual
meaning of the term.” (People v. Hodges (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 1348, 1355
[83 Cal.Rptr.2d 619].) Thus, carrying a firearm in an unlocked case in a
vehicle violates Penal Code section 12025(a)(1). (Ibid.) However, Penal Code
section 12026.1 makes it lawful to transport a firearm in a vehicle if it is in a
locked case.

pullnshoot25
05-16-2009, 1:28 PM
[QUOTE=pullnshoot25;2487951]A traffic ticket is an infraction.

Open carry is not worthless. You simply have forgotten how to be a citizen.

QUOTE]

First, I will start by:laugh:


Although a traffic ticket is a Infraction, it is classified a Misdemeanor!

When you Open Carry, are you allowed to carry ammo on your person, somewhere else on your person?

Got a citation or legal definition for that?

http://californiaopencarry.org.