Discussion in 'Legal' started by Arizona_Mike, Oct 15, 2013.
What's your summary? Any thoughts to share?
(4) For the purposes of this section, “concealed” means hidden or obscured from common observation and shall not include any weapon listed in subsection (1) of this section, including, but not limited to, a loaded or unloaded pistol carried upon the person in a sheath, belt holster or shoulder holster that is wholly or partially visible, or carried upon the person in a scabbard or case for carrying the weapon that is wholly or partially visible.
Part of the problem is often laws aren't written nearly as clear as the authors think.
Is the underlined portion referring to the gun or the sheath? I can see how it can be read either way. The section right after that is a little bit less unclear, but not enough IMHO.
But they aren't really trying to stop this law because it is unclear. They are trying to stop it because the don't like guns being out in public
I have to agree with akodo. What object is "wholly or partially visible"?
I think it must be referring to the sheath, belt holster or shoulder holster as wholly or partially visible because it seems to me that it would be impossible for the firearm itself to be wholly visible if it was in a sheath, belt holster or shoulder holster unless the sheath or holster was transparent.
Wasn't this the case about people open carrying but were getting hassled because their holster "concealed" part of the gun and therefore was deemed a concealed gun that was "exposed"?
Seems to me that it is referring to the holster. The way the law is written already says that a gun that can be observed is not "concealed", they are just further clarifying, I think, that a gun that is concealed inside of a holster that is visible is not concealed, although I would think that that would not extend to fanny packs and such.
So... wearing a flap holster on a belt would not constitute concealed carry then, right?
And before you answer... what about this Sneaky Pete holster (with the flap closed, of course)? Also not concealed carry?
Man, I am sooooo glad that I don't have to deal with confusing and oppressive carry laws. We do have a duty to inform here, but at least we can carry open or concealed, with or without a permit.
We has some crappy case law as well in Arizona before we went to Constitutional Carry. One was a court decision that a holster or even luggage that contained a gun "had to put the public on notice" to be considered open carry. Now the point is moot except for people too young to get a CCW permit. Dillon in Scottsdale used to sell something very much like the second picture ngnrd posted in the 90s but had to stop.
To me, concealed carry would be any carry option meant to conceal the fact that you have a firearm, as opposed to carry that makes it clear you are armed. The first holster, like my Nagant holster, is not concealed because it is obviously a holster. The second would be concealed carry because it obviously is intended to NOT look like a holster and so make the person appear unarmed. The first is designed to protect the pistol, the second is designed to conceal it.
And that's the problem. It's not up to you. It's up to LEO's, prosecutors, and juries. And without a well written law, they can take it to mean anything they want it to mean - and it won't matter what you, or I, or anybody else thought it meant.
You do know, of course, it doesn't even matter at all what the law says, right? Police can - and will if they choose - do just about what ever they like and let things settle out later. Law? Nah, not much. At the moment, primary concern of the officer is not your civil rights. Quality of the wording in any law is irrelevant. A cop who is about to make your life heck over a clamshell holster is already going to make your life heck, regardless of the holster. That is the real problem.
So, the first holster is obviously a holster. Open carry. The second is not. Concealed carry. Otherwise, ALL fanny packs, purses, pockets, can be called open carry.
If you are worried about a clamshell, my advice, worth the price it is billed, is to not use one when you open carry. If things have gotten to the point that you are arguing technicalities over holster design never used for concealing a firearm (previous use does come up here), then they have only begun tacking on extra counts to what ever charge has gotten you into trouble in the first place.
Separate names with a comma.