How open is open?

ManInBlack said:

Lol...apparently Rule #5 isn't big in the Colorado subforum...

Click to expand...

I'm often fond of saying "rules are for people who don't have manners". Have a seat, friend. Can I get you one of our fine Colorado microbrews?

since9 said:

Friends on the police force.

Click to expand...

Thanks. I understand you to be sharing your opinion and experience on the odds of common usage for enforcement, but I don't see you claiming it to carry the weight of law.

Everyone else who cares to play "IANAL but am going to lay my **** on the table to measure just how many millimeters I can eek out over the other guys' casual conversation with a tenuously related citation", may I suggest you take the time to enjoy our 300 days of sunshine? Well, not today. Or tomorrow for that matter. Well, in that case, here, suck on this Rocky Mountain Oyster to pacify you while the rest of us get back to saying, "Howdy, neighbor". I'll even chip in for tokens to Casa Bonita.

ManInBlack said:

Sigh...since no one cares to cite the actual statute and case law, I will.

Pistol tucked under edge of car seat. Where uncontested evidence established that pistol was tucked under the edge of a car seat on which petitioner was sitting, where it was within his easy reach, these circumstances constitute carrying a "firearm concealed on or about his person". People in Interest of R.J.A., 38 Colo. App. 346, 556 P.2d 491 (1976).

http://www.lpdirect.net/casb/crs/18-12-105.html

Click to expand...

That one irritates me since it's such a conflict to section c. I believe last time I read the code for my town they used that clause with the exclusion of C to read that without a CHP, you're not allowed to carry in your car within town. I doubt it would stand up to state law. I wonder if they've ever tried to nab someone with it and if that person lacked the means for a defense.

M-Taliesin said:

Howdy Beau!
Yes, by virtue of not being covered by clothing. It is not concealed "on or about the body". The verbage of the law doesn't go very far to describe specific environments, and knowing you somewhat, I am a little surprised that you'd pick nits. It ain't covered by clothing and is visible to the casual observer. I'm pretty sure the wait person standing over the table would be able to see it, but the point remains... it isn't covered by clothing or cloth with intent to conceal.

East of Aurora??? I didn't think you were THAT far east! LOL!!!

Blessings,
M-Taliesin

Click to expand...

Hey M-T,

I wasn't so much as picking nits as I was making a point. A poorly made one, but still a point.

My point being that when we pick nits, or nit pick if you prefer, by trying to overly define what is OC we are setting ourselves up for a wide variety of interpretation. I feel that OC should be defined only to say that it is carrying a firearm in a manner that it is visible, or may become visible, to others.

Even statutory citations are subject to the application of some measure of common sense. Being a former resident of Texas where "rules of thumb" generally "clarify" the "law" - I've happily adopted the even better Coloradoan perspective that some things are simply what they are - period.

The signs posted at the entrance to the County Tax Collectors office at Airport & Powers speaks for itself - I think....

" NO DISPLAY OF FIREARMS"

My "citation" is .... if it ain't DISPLAYED...it is either CONCEALED, or not present.

Historically, the term NOTORIOUSLY was ascribed to any activity not HIDDEN FROM GENERAL PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE. When you wear a holstered firearm that is not hidden from observation - it is not concealed.

rushcreek2 said:

My "citation" is .... if it ain't DISPLAYED...it is either CONCEALED, or not present.

Historically, the term NOTORIOUSLY was ascribed to any activity not HIDDEN FROM GENERAL PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE. When you wear a holstered firearm that is not hidden from observation - it is not concealed.

Click to expand...

In Mississippi, an openly-displayed handgun in a belt holster is concealed.

This is why "common-sense" legal interpretations are worth about as much as a winter parka in Haiti. I'm not going to stake my liberty or possibly even my life on someone's good-ol-boy truisms. I will go by what the courts that will judge me [are supposed to] go by: statute and precedent.

ManInBlack said:

I will go by what the courts that will judge me [are supposed to] go by: statute and precedent.

Click to expand...

Howdy MIB!
And that will guarantee what? There is a reason why lawyers and judges are said to be in the practice of law....
They ain't ready to go pro! And I surely don't trust my freedom on the hopes the judge is in a good mood for having just gotten lucky the night before. Judges tend to interpret the law. Unfortunately, they themselves often need an interpreter!

We seen judges at all levels make some pretty stupid decision (*i.e. citizen's united) and we all get stuck with having to endure them. We the People now includes Exxon, Mobile, Halliburton and any other corporation with enough money to buy their hand-picked representatives to high office, including influencing those same legislators to approve some pretty nonsensical selections to hand down decisions the corporation would find advantagous.

Truth is, there ain't much guarantee of anything in this world, with the exception that none of us will get out of it alive!
Blessings,
M-Taliesin