How Concealed is Concealed?

[Matt 357]

I have a 6" GP100. I live in Florida so open carry is not an option. In the event we have a SHTF situation (aka hurricane), I would like to be able to carry. I can get a ccw permit, but I'd rather not shell out for a smaller gun right now.

I can get a shoulder holster for the GP100 and wear a loose shirt over it. Here is my question... how concealed is concealed? If you carry a handgun "concealed" so that it is not visible but it is pretty obvious due to the bulge, are you breaking the law? Do state laws get specific about how concealed a weapon needs to be?

Thanks.

 

[avs11054]

Read FL's statute on concealed weapons. I'm sure every state is different. Before AZ passed it's law that people could carry concealed without a permit, the law stated that as long as any part of the firearm or holster was visible, it was not concealed. I would highly doubt though that any state would consider a "bulge" not concealed

 

[TimeIsRunninOut]

I have never had an issue with that, I have had days where unknowingly I was "printing" and an officer let me know. This has happened in OK and AZ, I can't vouch for FL. Your best bet is to ask a local LEO or CCW instructor about rules and regulations in your area.

 

[Sam1911]

Your best bet is to ask a local LEO

Not to be contrary, but most LEOs have NO IDEA what their state laws really say about such things. They can quote the DUI and drug laws and traffic violations, chapter and verse -- as they deal with these things all the time and make routine arrests, go to court, and provide witness testimony regarding them every week.

Ask a cop about most gun laws and you'll get some of the most random bits of errata you could imagine. Heck, in many areas various CCW-issuing agencies give out info sheets on the state carry laws to new licensees, which are famous for being full of inaccurate and overstated information.

Read the statute and live by it.

 

[brboyer]

A 'bulge' cannot be known to be a firearm, unless the garment covering it was so tight or transparent to make the outline/shape of the pistol clearly obvious.

With that in mind, here is what the Florida Supreme Court has said:

[A firearm is not concealed if] an individual, standing near a person with a firearm or beside a vehicle in which a person with a firearm is seated, may by ordinary observation know the questioned object to be a firearm.

This case was a discussion about a violation of 790.01 - Carrying concealed weapons. Not about a violation of 790.10 - Improper exhibition of dangerous weapons or firearms or 790.053 - Open carrying of weapons.

These two statutes would be the ones you need to consider if you, in fact, do have a CWFL. However, rest assured that the temporary, accidental, or inadvertent exposure of a lawfully concealed firearm does not rise to the levels addressed in these statutes.

 

[Scout Dork]

790.001
(2)

“Concealed firearm” means any firearm, as defined in subsection (6), which is carried on or about a person in such a manner as to conceal the firearm from the ordinary sight of another person.

 

[LouCap]

A 'bulge' cannot be known to be a firearm, unless the garment covering it was so tight or transparent to make the outline/shape of the pistol clearly obvious.

With that in mind, here is what the Florida Supreme Court has said:



This case was a discussion about a violation of 790.01 - Carrying concealed weapons. Not about a violation of 790.10 - Improper exhibition of dangerous weapons or firearms or 790.053 - Open carrying of weapons.

These two statutes would be the ones you need to consider if you, in fact, do have a CWFL. However, rest assured that the temporary, accidental, or inadvertent exposure of a lawfully concealed firearm does not rise to the levels addressed in these statutes.

LEO's do look for "non-anatomic" bulges under clothing during encounters though, so be aware of that. Also, your OP sounded like you were thinking of carrying concealed without a permit in the event of a hurricane...not sure about that one. Having worked a few, it's not unusual to see folks with guns on their own property guarding against looters. But, leave your property and be found wandering around with a weapon and your motives might be questioned.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Tablet using Tapatalk Pro.

 

[Matt 357]

Loucap,

I would not carry off property without a permit. Period. Not worth the risk. My concern is if I have a permit but I have a bulge, can I be arrested or fined.

I was wondering if anyone has had any personal experience with this.

brboyer, Thanks for your feedback. Interpretation of the law is part of the problem.

 

[wishin]

I find it interesting how different States define concealed carry. By definition, concealed should mean hidden from view, but like our law here, certain parts of the firearm can still be uncovered in a number of States and still be considered legally concealed. Obviously, FL is not one of them.

 

[Sam1911]

I find it interesting how different States define concealed carry.

... And that some states don't define it at all.

Here in PA you get a "License To Carry Firearms." Concealed isn't even mentioned. Which is ironic as you don't need an LCTF to carry openly (on foot ... as long as you're not in Philly).

 

[KBintheSLC]

Your best bet is to ask a local LEO

Bad idea. I recently had an LEO neighbor tell me that my UT carry permit was valid in CA. Believe it or not police officers have very limited training in the intricacies of the legal system. Consult an attorney, or go read the statutes yourself. It is the only way to know for sure.

 

[MarkDido]

+1
I got into a "debate" with my boss about vehicle carry in Florida.

I work for a local Sheriff's Office (civilian) and my boss, also a civilian was also a Reserve Deputy.

She contended that you could not carry a loaded firearm in your vehicle in Florida. I showed her the statutes.

Her "knowledge" of the law was back when she had just become a reserve, 20years earlier.

Ask a lawyer, or read the statutes for yourself.

 

[wishin]

... And that some states don't define it at all.

I'd much prefer it that way. Why complicate a simple issue.

 

[franconialocal]

In New Hampshire it's not clearly defined. As a police officer I will tell you that (based on my own discretion and pro 2A attitude) if any part of the firearm is exposed enough for me to positively identify it's a sidearm then I would NOT pursue a charge. Given the above Florida T-shirt example I would say YES.....this firearm is concealed.

Part of my decision will be based on the nature of the incident, intent of the firearm owner, etc. I'll give one example as a short story....

About a year ago a local man, known personally to me and just about everyone in town, was riding a bicycle down the street with a holstered revolver on his belt. He was wearing an un-zipped leather jacket which partially covered this sidearm as he rode. In this example I would NOT call this weapon concealed even though the jacket was mostly covering the sidearm except for the bottom part of the holster and when it would fully expose as he rode.

HOWEVER, when I stopped to speak with him (unrelated to his sidearm) he very quickly zipped up his jacket and pulled it down completely over the sidearm....thus making it concealed. He did have a permit so this aspect of it was ok but hopefully this story touches on the "grey area" of what is actually concealed or not. Be warned......just like everything else in this law game...there may not be a clearly defined line and the attorneys will have a field day with it regardless. Use your head before you venture out.

 

[MedWheeler]

You're in Florida, and thinking only of carry during a time of disaster, which is actually likely to be rare. A "bulge" could be anything. How it's interpreted will depend on how it's presented. Don't get in an argument with someone and then let it show, even accidentally, lest the other person say you "pulled a gun on him." Otherwise, you should be fine. I carry everyday, and also live in Florida, so shoulder rigs are out. But, you could always pass it off as a colostomy bag or Holter monitor (a device used by doctors to take a 24-hour reading of a patient's heart rhythm.) After all, you are in Florida..

 

[Girodin]

Read the statute and live by it.

Not to be contrary, but just reading the statute and living by what you think it says can be disaster when it comes to the law. You need to see if there are cases interpreting the statute. Often they clarify what it means or fill in the gaps. It can be that cases give meaning to a statute that an average Joe might not upon reading it. Also you probably need to make sure you understand pertinent terms of art, or terms that are defined else where.

In sum, when one you want to know the law reading the statute is where you start, it is typically not where you end.

 

[Zoogster]

Not to be contrary, but just reading the statute and living by what you think it says can be disaster when it comes to the law. You need to see if there are cases interpreting the statute. Often they clarify what it means or fill in the gaps. It can be that cases give meaning to a statute that an average Joe might not upon reading it.

This is very true, in California there is even statutes where the case law has determined the meaning is almost the opposite of what the English language meaning would be reading the statute.

The definitions of the law as it legally applies can be drastically different from the written statute, or just slightly different.


Looking up a statute is the simple part, finding all the case law that modifies that statute's meaning, figuring out which newer portions of case law overwrite prior portions of case and which do not is the difficult part.
The actual definition of the statute is often the partial definition of early case law, modified partially by newer case law that leaves some of the old case law intact and redefines another portion.
The result can be a legal definition that sounds nothing like the statute does to someone that is only using the English language to decipher it.

Often times simple english terms or words have completely different legal terms defined in other case law that is not even directly related to the statute in question, but shares the same legal definition of those words on a related case dealing with a different statute but part of the same area of law.

 

[Flintknapper]

This is the definition in Texas:

PC §46.035. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE HOLDER. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder carries a handgun on or about the license holder's person under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411 , Government Code, and intentionally fails to conceal the handgun.

What does "conceal" mean?



G

C §411.171. DEFINITIONS. In this subchapter:
(3) "Concealed handgun" means a handgun, the presence of which is not openly discernible to the ordinary observation of a reasonable person.

Check your local laws and penal codes, DO NOT seek out information from law enforcement, they tend to be woefully ill informed about carry laws.

 

[Zoogster]

What does "conceal" mean?

(3) "Concealed handgun" means a handgun, the presence of which is not openly discernible to the ordinary observation of a reasonable person.

Then you would have to look up any case law that further defined "discernible to the ordinary observation of a reasonable person".

A court of law could decide that term meant more or less than it appears, as the term is itself pretty ambiguous.
What is "ordinary observation", and what is a "reasonable person"?
"Ordinary" and "reasonable" are entirely subjective.
Both separately give some discretion, combine them together in one definition and it is really ambiguous.
Meaning the term could easily come to mean what a court case defines it to mean, setting precedent and a new more specific definition that applies to future cases.
So you would have to make sure there is no such case law yet, and realize the definition may change if and when there is.

 

[brboyer]

Then you would have to look up any case law that further defined "discernible to the ordinary observation of a reasonable person".

A court of law could decide that term meant more or less than it appears, as the term is itself pretty ambiguous.
What is "ordinary observation", and what is a "reasonable person"?
"Ordinary" and "reasonable" are entirely subjective.
Both separately give some discretion, combine them together in one definition and it is really ambiguous.
Meaning the term could easily come to mean what a court case defines it to mean, setting precedent and a new more specific definition that applies to future cases.
So you would have to make sure there is no such case law yet, and realize the definition may change if and when there is.

Not really.

First "reasonable person" is well settled in every state and in Federal courts.

See post #5 for what the Florida Supreme Court said about 'Concealed'.