Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Concealed Carry Ruling ?

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Paul S
    Senior Member
    • Jun 2010
    • 1847

    Concealed Carry Ruling ?

    Lt. Col. Dave Grossman
  • #2
    thefinger
    Senior Member
    • Sep 2006
    • 1651

    I think the term is "substantially concealed". Check out this page....

    wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Defining_Concealed

    Comment

    • #3
      Paul S
      Senior Member
      • Jun 2010
      • 1847

      Originally posted by thefinger
      I think the term is "substantially concealed". Check out this page....

      wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Defining_Concealed
      Thank you sir! That's the info I am seeking.
      I looked everywhere EXCEPT the wiki...shame on me I guess.

      Again...my thanks.
      Lt. Col. Dave Grossman

      Comment

      • #4
        Tiberius
        Senior Member
        • Jun 2009
        • 1160

        Just a cautionary, and possibly ill-informed, note: the case law in that Wiki seems to all relate to people charged with carrying dirks, concealed and therefore illegally. In other words, the courts were saying that these were covered up enough to qualify as concealed, and therefore were illegal. The individuals in the cases (the defendants) were probably arguing that since the tip of the blade either printed or stuck out, it wasn't concealed.

        The rules for what counts as concealed for LTC purposes may be different. It's the opposition situation - a CCW/LTC weapon is supposed to be concealed, while the dirk/knife in most of the cases isn't. There's a rule of reason, probably. If a hurricane force winds paints your clothes against you and print, not illegal. If you're walking around with a S&W 500 under a fold of toilet paper, not concealed.

        Comment

        • #5
          Librarian
          Admin and Poltergeist
          CGN Contributor - Lifetime
          • Oct 2005
          • 44661

          Originally posted by Tiberius
          Just a cautionary, and possibly ill-informed, note: the case law in that Wiki seems to all relate to people charged with carrying dirks, concealed and therefore illegally. In other words, the courts were saying that these were covered up enough to qualify as concealed, and therefore were illegal. The individuals in the cases (the defendants) were probably arguing that since the tip of the blade either printed or stuck out, it wasn't concealed.

          The rules for what counts as concealed for LTC purposes may be different. It's the opposition situation - a CCW/LTC weapon is supposed to be concealed, while the dirk/knife in most of the cases isn't. There's a rule of reason, probably. If a hurricane force winds paints your clothes against you and print, not illegal. If you're walking around with a S&W 500 under a fold of toilet paper, not concealed.
          Those are the cases cited for support for PC 12025 in the CalCrim jury instructions; evidently the California court system believes those cases apply equally to handguns and dirks.
          ARCHIVED Calguns Foundation Wiki here: http://web.archive.org/web/201908310...itle=Main_Page

          Frozen in 2015, it is falling out of date and I can no longer edit the content. But much of it is still good!

          Comment

          Working...
          UA-8071174-1