Is it legal to open carry spare magazines???

[swinokur]

Several companies make IWB mag holders.


Comp-Tac and Tucker Gunleather come to mind.

 

[Balrog]

In certain states, even printing of the weapon can be considered brandishing a firearm. If I lived in one of those states, then I would consider open carrying magazines to be a form of brandishing, if I was on your jury.

 

[CollinLeon]

In certain states, even printing of the weapon can be considered brandishing a firearm. If I lived in one of those states, then I would consider open carrying magazines to be a form of brandishing, if I was on your jury.

Personally, I think that you would be wrong in this attitude. It is perfectly within the jury members' rights to disregard the laws of the state if it does not agree with them. The term for it is "jury nullification".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

Just because something has been written as a "law" doesn't make it morally right (just as the reverse is also true). More juries need to do this in my opinion. Too many juries are just sheep who think that the cops and DAs are always right.

 

[Balrog]

Personally, I think that you would be wrong in this attitude. It is perfectly within the jury members' rights to disregard the laws of the state if it does not agree with them. The term for it is "jury nullification".

I don't see anything wrong with brandishing laws, if the state has them, so why would I want to nullify by jury?

 

[CollinLeon]

I don't see anything wrong with brandishing laws, if the state has them, so why would I want to nullify by jury?

OK... I understand which side of the "slippery slope" you're on... Never mind... Don't want to give the censors yet another chance to close a thread due to the discussion getting interesting...

 

[Flintknapper]

Balrog wrote:

In certain states, even printing of the weapon can be considered brandishing a firearm. If I lived in one of those states, then I would consider open carrying magazines to be a form of brandishing, if I was on your jury.

Please explain? I am interested to hear the rationale behind this.

A magazine is NOT the weapon itself. Even so....you seem willing to make the "jump" from a component part to an incident of brandishing.

If you did not plainly see the weapon ITSELF (or outline of it), then you are simply making a guess as to whether of not the person has one or not.

If I were to spot a "tattoo" on you, I wouldn't immediately assume you were a gang member.

Heck....as long as we're guessing, why stop at magazines. If someone's coat blew open just enough for you to see a thicker than normal belt, you might as well surmise it is a GUN BELT. And if the guy has a gun belt on....then he MUST have a gun (even though I can't see it and can't prove it).

I don't plan on ever having to go before a jury of my peers, but if I do....I pray there is no one on it making judgments based on their "Spidey senses".

Come on guys, unless the law in your State is written such that it specifically includes items other than the weapon itself, then stick to empirical evidence (actual sighting/printing of the gun).

 

[CollinLeon]

Back after 9/11 when they first started this mess that prevented us from being able to lock our checked bags (and thus making it easier for the TSA and baggage handlers to steal stuff from our luggage), I contacted the FAA concerning the requirement that firearms be declared since they did not explicitly state what constitutes a firearm. I contacted various people over a period of a few years and no one would go on record stating exactly how many gun parts constitutes a firearm for their definition. The reason that I did this was because that as long as I declared that my luggage had a firearm in it, I would be able to lock the bag. The FAA's regulations say that a firearm must be declared, but firearm parts are not required to be declared. So, the question that I had for them was: Exactly how many parts constitute a "firearm" by their definition? So, in order to be able to lock my luggage, I would put a pair of M1911 grips in my luggage in a small locked case, lock my bag, and then declare to the airline that it contained a firearm. You are not even allowed to have unlocked luggage if you have a firearm in it and you have to be present whenever they open said piece of luggage for inspection. I have to wonder though, how minimal of gun parts could I have gotten away with doing this... What about the screws that hold the grips to the frame of the M1911?

 

[Balrog]

If you did not plainly see the weapon ITSELF (or outline of it), then you are simply making a guess as to whether of not the person has one or not.

The point of brandishing laws is to keep people from intimidating others with the threat of deadly force. If you have magazines on your belt, I would assume you have a gun. I have never seen or even heard of anyone carrying magazines unless they had a gun for it.

So if someone with magazines exposed on their belt starts becoming agitated and belligerent, I think a reasonable person would conclude they are probably armed.

If they are armed, that would be brandishing in my opinion.

If they are not armed, well it would just be stupid.

 

[CollinLeon]

Where are you from Balrog? Perhaps that would explain where your point of view comes from... Here in Texas, the simple display of a firearm does not mean that you are brandishing it... One can legally walk down the street with a rifle or shotgun slung over your shoulder and it not be classified as "brandishing" it... Of course, in MY considered option, the concept of having laws that prohibit "brandishing" is a restriction on our 2nd Amendment rights and as such are totally unconstitutional... Firearms should be treated no different than any other tool with respect to this... A better law might be one against intimidation which could apply to any tool that could be used in an offensive manner... Intimidation by firearm should be covered by the same regulation that prohibits intimidation by baseball bat... Otherwise, we are treating firearms differently and that is what the leftists want us to do...

 

[CollinLeon]

According to this:

http://www.austin-criminal-lawyer.com/brandishing-a-weapon.aspx

"brandishing" a weapon is pointing it at someone...

Of course, that's assuming that you are actually willing to believe what a lawyer tells you... Personally, I'll take it with a grain of salt since if you want a different legal opinion on a matter, all you have to do is find another lawyer... Unfortunately, you don't get to choose the DA that prosecutes you... Hopefully, you won't get one that disregards the Constitution and wants to further his anti-2nd-Amendment goals...

 

[Balrog]

Where are you from Balrog? Perhaps that would explain where your point of view comes from... Here in Texas, the simple display of a firearm does not mean that you are brandishing it.

I am from Georgia. We have no brandishing laws here, and you can walk around with a gun and mags on your belt all day long, assuming you have a permit of course. My comments were made in reference to places with brandishing laws.

"brandishing" a weapon is pointing it at someone...

Some jurisdictions have a stricter definition. I believe some here have stated that in their states, even printing can be considered brandishing, though I don't recall what states they were from.

 

[Flintknapper]

Balrog wrote:

The point of brandishing laws is to keep people from intimidating others with the threat of deadly force.

Well....to Unlawfully do so, but yes....that is correct.

If you have magazines on your belt, I would assume you have a gun.

See, there ya go! Making assumptions/guesses instead of relying upon hard evidence. I fear you do not recognize the intellectual dishonesty of this?

I have never seen or even heard of anyone carrying magazines unless they had a gun for it.

I do it nearly everyday. Every time I go to the Post Office (because of law) I am forced to remove my weapon from my holster, leave it in my vehicle, then put it back in my holster when I return.

If I bent over and exposed my spare magazine while in the Post Office, a person of your same position might call the Police and have me detained. Of course, it would be quickly found that I was NOT in violation of any laws (in Texas), but you are willing to call this brandishing.

Even though NO WEAPON was present and there was no intent on my part to cause alarm. Wow!

So if someone with magazines exposed on their belt starts becoming agitated and belligerent, I think a reasonable person would conclude they are probably armed.

Huh? Are you suggesting that only ARMED people become "agitated/belligerent" or that maybe the weapon itself causes that effect? Are there laws in your State prohibiting a person from becoming upset/angry, I hope not.

Bottom line is this: You can be as docile, angry, calm or upset as you like (most places). What you can't do is ACTUALLY display/print a weapon, whats so hard about that?

If they are armed, that would be brandishing in my opinion.

Then I'd have to say...I am glad you are not writing the law.

If they are not armed, well it would just be stupid.

Then count me among the "stupid" every time I disarm (but do not remove my holster/mags).

I CC almost daily, very few places I go are posted/prohibited, but I don't take my Shoulder Rig off when I do encounter a place. Instead, I simply leave my weapon in my vehicle...then arm again later. If that is "stupid" to you...then so be it, but it is just one example of where your assumption would be wrong.

As I said before, anything short of actually seeing the weapon (or its outline), should not cause you alarm, let it go.

 

[deadin]

Why do I get the feeling that this whole thing is somehow related to CCW Badges, etc. (In other words, "What good is having a CCW if no one knows it?")

 

[Balrog]

See, there ya go! Making assumptions/guesses instead of relying upon hard evidence. I fear you do not recognize the intellectual dishonesty of this?

Have you ever heard of someone actually open carrying mags but no gun? What you are doing in the post office sounds like concealed carry of the magazines. I would be careful doing that, unless you want to argue with a federal judge as to whether or not a magazine and ammo qualifies as a weapon, especially if you have a gun in your car on the premises. You might get out of it ok, but who would want the hassel?

As I said before, anything short of actually seeing the weapon (or its outline), should not cause you alarm, let it go.

No, I don't have to see a gun. I guess you live in condition white until someone shows a gun?

 

[Flintknapper]

I give up, you have your mind made up to act on supposition, no amount of discussion is going to change that.

Remember to look up though, the sky is falling.

 

[Art Eatman]

Way, way too much wandering...