With a CCW in California, am I allowed to OC loaded?

[Theseus]

I was wondering, being that a CCW allows one to conceal loaded, if I get a California CCW am I allowed then to OC loaded?

[leelaw]

Nope. Keep it concealed or you'll get your CCW pulled.

[Kid Stanislaus]

In the PRC that's called "brandishing".

[gunrun45]

Yep. Even in northern ca in some of the most gun friendly parts of CA OC a loaded with a CCW will get your CCW yanked.

[CitaDeL]

Nope. Keep it concealed or you'll get your CCW pulled.

In the PRC that's called "brandishing".

Allow me to elucidate, since I am perhaps the most qualified in the State of California to comment on this topic. (Not because of my education or arrogance, but due to my unique experience.)

There is no statutory requirement for a licensee to conceal a firearm in 12050. There is however, power granted to the issuing authority to enact reasonable restrictions on how, where and when a firearm may be carried. These restrictions according to the statute are to be imprinted on the license issued. This is necessary, as the licensee and other authorities must assume if no restrictions are printed on the license, that the license is unrestricted and do not otherwise prohibit lawful behavior. (Like unloaded open carry or hunting with a weapon other than is listed on the license.)

The license is solely to allow the conduct prohibited by 12025. So, when a person is carrying exposed (ie; unconcealed) that person is not excersizing the privileges afforded a licensee.

That is not to say that an abusive issuing authority could not usurp authority not delegated to them by 12050 and revoke a license for any reason they wish. (Especially if the authority is a quarter century member of the NRA, professes to be pro-gun, and feigns some political injury due to one of his constituents' advocacy of open carry.)

Brandishing is governed by 417 and would require the exihibition of a firearm to be rude, angry, or threatening to fulfill the elements of that crime. Exposed carry while in possession of a license to conceal a weapon is not brandishing and not a crime.

[hoffmang]

The penal code is interesting. The permit you get is enabled by this section:

12050 (a) (1) (A) (i) A license to carry concealed a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.

Now there is something to the concept of carrying open loaded when not "relying" on the CCW (with LeeLaw's caveats certainly.)

However, in that situation I think you run right into:

12031. (a) (1) A person is guilty of carrying a loaded firearm when
he or she carries a loaded firearm on his or her person or in a
vehicle while in any public place or on any public street in an
incorporated city or in any public place or on any public street in a
prohibited area of unincorporated territory.
...
(b) Subdivision (a) shall not apply to any of the following:
...
(6) The carrying of pistols, revolvers, or other firearms capable
of being concealed upon the person by persons who are authorized to
carry those weapons pursuant to Article 3 (commencing with Section
12050) of Chapter 1 of Title 2 of Part 4.

So looking closely at the code I think you're required to conceal unless you have a license issued pursuant to 12050 (a) (1) (A) (ii).

-Gene

[CalCop]

In the PRC that's called "brandishing".

rude, angry, or threatening manner

[383green]

Is there any accepted standard that helps define the (probably fuzzy) line between "concealing poorly" and "openly carrying"? I've seen comments in open-carry threads that related to LEOs articulating PC when an OCer may or may not have had a firearm partially concealed, but I haven't seen anything discussing this from the opposite direction: when is a CCW licensee doing a poor enough job of concealing their weapon that it's considered to be carried openly?

[Glock22Fan]

Theoretically, it is possible for a Sheriff in a county or less than (IIRC) 2000 inhabitants to issue an open carry loaded permit. However, I have never heard of one being so issued.

At the risk of being attacked violently again (for the third time) by people who can't read English and somehow think that me saying this means that I don't support Open Carry, a Concealed carry permit is just that, a concealed carry permit. It is not, by definition, an open carry permit.

As others have stated, practising OC can, and probably will, get your CCW yanked in California. Whether this makes sense or not, it is reality.

Is there any accepted standard that helps define the (probably fuzzy) line between "concealing poorly" and "openly carrying"?

p.c. 12025 "(f) Firearms carried openly in belt holsters are not concealed within the meaning of this section."

Now, if your arm momentarily flaps across your belt holster I'm sure you would be OK, the law cannot expect you to keep your arm above waist level at all times. Your shirt tail? Possibly not; keep it tucked in.

According to my copy of "stay out of jail," California courts have given a very broad meaning to the word "Concealed." My edition says: "If any part of the gun is concealed, even just the clip, the gun can be considered to be a concealed gun."

[CCWFacts]

I was wondering, being that a CCW allows one to conceal loaded, if I get a California CCW am I allowed then to OC loaded?

I would have to go back and read the statute in detail, but my recollection is: strangely enough, the statute doesn't anywhere mandate that it's concealed. In fact, Chief Bratton took advantage of that, by using his CCW as an open carry permit. I think the permit allows it (again, I would need to look over the statute again to be sure).

In real life, actually doing that will cause the issuing authority to pull the permit.

[Glock22Fan]

CCWFacts wrote:

I would have to go back and read the statute in detail, but my recollection is: strangely enough, the statute doesn't anywhere mandate that it's concealed.

12050 (a) (1) (A) (i) A license to carry concealed a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.

[strega7]

These restrictions according to the statute are to be imprinted on the license issued. This is necessary, as the licensee and other authorities must assume if no restrictions are printed on the license, that the license is unrestricted and do not otherwise prohibit lawful behavior.

I'm sorry, what does this say? The reason I ask is my CCW has no restrictions listed on it. Back in the mid/late 90's it used to have a list of places "off-limits" but not now. Is this an issue?

[jaymz]

In the PRC that's called "brandishing".

No it's not.

[Theseus]

It is an interesting situation. I have no real desire to waste my time and money considering that when Heller is incorporated I will soon after be able to OC loaded. . . I was more thinking about 626.9 and 12031.

626.9 specifically exempts CCW holders.

With Hoffmans PC snippets it seems the technicality that would prevent it would be the fact that there are two different permits, one CC and one OC.

The 12031 only provides exemption to persons carrying persuant to the 12050 concealed.

And, when previous in my studies I recall 626.9 having an exemption for CCW holders. I went to look at the PC today and I didn't find it. . . Am I missing it, or did it never exist in the first place?

[Gray Peterson]

There are two competing theories as to the structure of the statute:

1) The "Licensing Purpose" Theory
2) The "Superior License" Theory

Both theories have some form of merit. If Chief Bratton open carried on a CCW license, and there's evidence that some city attorney stated that it would be lawful for him to carry on such a license openly, we need to find the document given by that lawyer.