Cross draw SA holster for open carry

I'm getting ready to acquire a cross draw holster for a single action New Vaquero. This holster will see use everyday as CC and, on occasion, OC. I do various physical things throughout the day and ride street & dualsport (20% dirt - nothing hardcore) motorcycles everyday. The design has reportedly been just fine with normal working retention but I'm considering having the craftsman make it with a snap over retention strap for good measure. I'm concerned about Ohio's vague concealed definitions. I've read that a flap holster might be considered concealed and I'm wondering if the same might hold true with a snap over retention strap as only the grip, and part of the rear frame would be visible.

Mainly, my current considerations have been centered on CC inform vs. OC no duty to inform. In the early 1990's, I saw several people open carrying in our area. However, as 2000 or so came around, it ceased and people seem to have become firearm sensitive around here. I'm hoping not to have negative encounters but since I haven't open carried here in a long while, I'm reluctantly accepting that it'd be a likelihood.

So, what do you think? Is the holster with a retention strap described more likely to be seen as concealed? I'm asking for opinions as, AFAIK, there isn't much solid information about holsters and Ohio's concealed definition. If there are specific cases or legal information, I'd love to read it.



{I'm not asking about tactical retention... that's another story all together!}

With the retention strap, and no cover garment, how close would someone have to be to tell that you have a gun?


ORC 2923.11 Weapons control definitions

--This section does not define "concealed"--

It doesn't even contain that word.


ORC 2923.12 Carrying concealed weapons

--This section does not define "concealed"--

It contains over 30 instances of that word.


ORC 9.68 eliminates any local laws dealing with carrying or possessing firearms. That would include open/concealed definitions (IMHO).

Unless "concealed" is defined somewhere else in the ORC or relative case law, a court would/could refer to a dictionary definition.

Most Inside the WaistBand are intended for concealed carry. I base that on the marketing from the websites of various holster makers.

A LEO or judge may think the same way.

I OC with an Outside the WaistBand holster. It CAN be covered, but without cover, it's completely exposed. There is a retention strap that goes around the back of the slide (S&W M&P45c). Only the grip and rear sight shows.

Unless I'm wearing a black shirt and jeans, you can tell I'm wearing a handgun from 50 feet away, or more, depending on your eyesight.

You makes your holster and you takes your chances!

MyWifeSaidYes said:

With the retention strap, and no cover garment, how close would someone have to be to tell that you have a gun?

Click to expand...

It's that whole flap holster thing that has me waffling about the retention strap. Most of us could tell a firearm in a flap holster from a good distance but word is that it can be (or has been in some cases) considered concealed in Ohio.

MyWifeSaidYes said:

You makes your holster and you takes your chances!

Click to expand...

Yeah, tell me about it! lol

Neither the holster or my gun belt will be ready by the picnic so... *sigh*

Come to the picnic anyway.

I have only ever found 1 actual court case where a flap holster was charged as a concealed weapon. But that was an actual flap holster where NONE of the gun was showing.

If you are not comfortable open carrying, don't open carry.

Yep, I'm planning on being there if my health holds out. I try not to commit to things; never know how I'm doing until I walk out the door.

I'm more than comfortable open carrying at the picnic. I was trying to organize small open carry, or at least empty holster, protests as early as 1991ish with no success. Open carry is all good as far as I'm concerned... I prefer it and always have. The problem is primarily the Walmart belt that has to be cinched up so tight. I figured that I'd flip my shirt over the sidearm. Also, the belt issue relegates me to lighter firearm carry than I normally prefer for "big city", all day excursions... .45 is my preference but lately have been relegated to .357 due to sub-par equipment.

MyWifeSaidYes said:

I have only ever found 1 actual court case where a flap holster was charged as a concealed weapon. But that was an actual flap holster where NONE of the gun was showing.

Click to expand...

I've been a little freaked out about open carry and flap holsters ever since reading posts by experienced users and their warnings about it. Sadly, I like flap holsters!

Do you have a link to that case. I've never got to read anything first hand on the subject. Don't waste much of your time looking for it if it's not handy as I'm just casually interested right now. Even the party names alone would allow me to google it.

Can't believe that I missed or forgot this from Color of Law:

There is no qualification or law that defines a holster. But, if the holster does not give an indication that it contains a firearm then it can be construed as concealing the firearm. A holster with a flap covering the entire firearm except for the butt of the gun could be legally determined to be concealed. And yes in Ohio this has happened. A good old fashioned cowboy holster is perfectly legal. Usually if the grip is visible it considered open carrying.

Click to expand...

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...g-oc-in-Ohio&p=1726466&viewfull=1#post1726466

That would mean the retention strap should be fine as the grip and some of the back strap is visible. I linked and quoted in case someone else stumbles onto this thread in the future.

State v. Bowman (1992), 79 Ohio App. 3d 407, 412, 607 N.E.2d 516

In order to support a conviction of carrying a concealed weapon, it is not necessary to prove that the weapon was carried in such a manner or in such a location as to give absolutely no notice of its presence under any kind of ordinary observation; rather, it is sufficient to prove only that ordinary observation would give no notice of its presence.

Click to expand...

State v. Coker (1984), 15 Ohio App. 3d 97, 98, 472 N.E.2d 747

It is not necessary to prove that the shotgun was carried in such manner or in such location as to give absolutely no notice of its presence under any kind of observation. Rather, it is sufficient to support a conviction of carrying a concealed weapon to prove only that ordinary observation would give no notice of its presence. This is a question of fact to be resolved by the trier of fact. There must be an evidentiary basis established by the proof upon which the jury could find that the weapon was concealed.

Click to expand...

Cite as State v. Bruening, 2007-Ohio-6982

A weapon is concealed if it is situated so that ordinary observation would give no notice of its presence. State v. Bowman (1992), 79 Ohio App. 3d 407, 412, 607 N.E.2d 516; State v. Coker (1984), 15 Ohio App. 3d 97, 98, 472 N.E.2d 747.

Click to expand...

So, if I openly carry at 3 o'clock and someone views me from 9 o'clock, I have a concealed weapon.

I love this country!

MyWifeSaidYes said:

So, if I openly carry at 3 o'clock and someone views me from 9 o'clock, I have a concealed weapon.

I love this country!

Click to expand...

:lol: That's what the cops would argue.

Like everyone in the room says the king has no clothes on and the cops say he is wearing a three piece suit.

Wow, those results are pretty lame.

I guess that I'll just base the decision on what, IMHO, it should've been based; ease of draw and retention needs. There's no point in me obsessing over the finer points with case law like that out there.

Thanks guys!

Where did this come from?

When you trace this back this so called definition of open carry was not decided by the Ohio Supreme court. It came from a 1960 Nebraska Supreme Court decision through a Maryland appeals court decision in 1966. And these cases were about concealing weapons in motor vehicles, not in public areas.

It also is a subjective mater in which a jury is the trier of facts.

State v. Bruening, 2007-Ohio-6982

A weapon is concealed if it is situated so that ordinary observation would give no notice of its presence. State v. Bowman (1992), 79 Ohio App. 3d 407, 412, 607 N.E.2d 516; State v. Coker (1984), 15 Ohio App. 3d 97, 98, 472 N.E.2d 747.

Click to expand...

State v. Port, 2006-Ohio-2783

For purposes of R.C. 2923.12, the test for determining “concealment” is set forth in State v. Pettit (1969), 20 Ohio App.2d 170, 173-74, 252 N.E.2d 325, as the following:

a weapon is concealed if it is so situated as not to be discernable by ordinary observation by those near enough to see it if it were not concealed, who would come into contact with the possessor in the usual associations of life; but that absolute invisibility is not required, since ordinary observation does not extend to a search unusually careful, thorough or detailed, made because of suspicion that contraband which is not visible by ordinary observation may in actuality be present.

Click to expand...

Furthermore, the Ninth District Court of Appeals found that a weapon need not be totally hidden from observation in order to render it concealed within the meaning of the statute. State v. Brandle (1996), 116 Ohio App.3d 753, 689 N.E.2d 94, citing State v. Coker (1984), 15 Ohio App.3d 97, 472 N.E.2d 747. In conclusion, it is not necessary to prove that the weapon was carried in such a manner or in such a location as to give absolutely no notice of its presence under any observation; rather, it is sufficient to prove that ordinary observation would give no notice of its presence. Coker, 15 Ohio App.3d at 98.

Click to expand...

State v. Bowman (1992), 79 Ohio App. 3d 407, 412, 607 N.E.2d 516

In order to support a conviction of carrying a concealed weapon, it is not necessary to prove that the weapon was carried in such a manner or in such a location as to give absolutely no notice of its presence under any kind of ordinary observation; rather, it is sufficient to prove only that ordinary observation would give no notice of its presence.

Click to expand...

State v. Coker (1984), 15 Ohio App. 3d 97, 98, 472 N.E.2d 747

It is not necessary to prove that the shotgun was carried in such manner or in such location as to give absolutely no notice of its presence under any kind of observation. Rather, it is sufficient to support a conviction of carrying a concealed weapon to prove only that ordinary observation would give no notice of its presence. This is a question of fact to be resolved by the trier of fact. There must be an evidentiary basis established by the proof upon which the jury could find that the weapon was concealed.

Click to expand...

State v. Pettit (1969), 20 Ohio App.2d 170, 173-74, 252 N.E.2d 325

We think that a recognized test is that a weapon is concealed if it is so situated as not to be discernible by ordinary observation by those near enough to see it if it were not concealed, who would come into contact with the possessor in the usual associations of life; but that absolute invisibility is not required, since ordinary observation does not extend to a search unusually careful, thorough or detailed, made because of suspicion that contraband which is not visible by ordinary observation may in actuality be present. Shipley v. State, 243 Md. 262, 220 A. 2d 585.

Click to expand...

Shipley v. State (1966) , 243 Md. 262, 220 A. 2d 585

By a recognized test a weapon is concealed if it is so situated as not to be discernible by ordinary observation by those near enough to see it if it were not concealed who would come into contact with the possessor in the usual associations of life, but absolute invisibility is not required; since ordinary observation does not extend to a search unusually careful, thorough or detailed, made because of suspicion that contraband which is not visible by ordinary observation may in actuality be present. 94 C.J.S. Weapons § 8 (e); 56 Am. Jur. Weapons and Firearms § 10, pp. 997-98; Annot., Concealed Weapon, 43 A.L.R.2d 492, 510-15; and see Kennedy v. State, (Neb.), 105 N.W.2d 710.

Click to expand...

Kennedy v. State (1960), (Neb.), 105 N.W.2d 710 (Supreme Court of Nebraska)

[T]he courts generally hold, including our own, that absolute invisibility to other persons is not indispensable to concealment of a weapon on or about the person of a defendant, and that a weapon is so concealed when it is hidden from ordinary observation and is readily accessible on his person or in a motor vehicle operated by defendant.

Click to expand...