Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 29

Thread: OC with IWB Holster

  1. #1
    NRedmond
    Guest

    OC with IWB Holster

    Anyone have any experience with it? I have been researching it to make sure it is ok legally and the only thing I can find in the ORS 166.250 is the part referring to "(3) Firearms carried openly in belt holsters are not concealed within the meaning of this section."

    Is an IWB holster considered a "belt holster"?

    From what I see I would think, it is legal.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	photo 1.jpg 
Views:	498 
Size:	79.7 KB 
ID:	10056
    Last edited by NRedmond; 02-26-2013 at 05:13 PM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    , Oregon, USA
    Posts
    70
    Just as much of the firearm is readily visible as would be with an OWB, so I wouldn't see why not.

    And the clips attach to your belt, don't they?
    Last edited by Xader; 02-27-2013 at 07:29 PM.

  3. #3
    NRedmond
    Guest
    Haha yes it does, that's kinda what I was thinking. Thanks for the reply!

  4. #4
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    Can you say "test case"? The language of the law is "openly in belt holsters"......someone will say it's not openly when it's inside your waistband and some idiot judge will agree.
    "The Second Amendment speaks nothing to an unfettered Right". (Post # 100)
    "Restrictions are not infringements. Bans are infringements.--if it reaches beyond Reasonable bans". (Post # 103)
    Beretta92FSLady
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ons-Bill/page5

    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nothing in any of my posts should be considered legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a reputable attorney, not an internet forum.

  5. #5
    NRedmond
    Guest
    That's true. I'm not sure I'm gonna risk it... Might just go with an OWB.

  6. #6
    Regular Member rushcreek2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs. CO
    Posts
    924
    If you prefer an IWB - A Don Hume leather IWB with thumb-break. The top of the holster shows a little above the belt-line , and of course the leather thumb-break evidences the holster as well.
    Last edited by rushcreek2; 02-28-2013 at 02:59 PM.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Gary, Indiana, USA
    Posts
    518

    Re: OC with IWB Holster

    Just remember that no one can ever question whether you're legally carrying openly if it's in an OWB holster.

    Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

  8. #8
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    Quote Originally Posted by NRedmond View Post
    Anyone have any experience with it? I have been researching it to make sure it is ok legally and the only thing I can find in the ORS 166.250 is the part referring to "(3) Firearms carried openly in belt holsters are not concealed within the meaning of this section."

    Is an IWB holster considered a "belt holster"?

    From what I see I would think, it is legal.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	photo 1.jpg 
Views:	498 
Size:	79.7 KB 
ID:	10056
    If it is visible, and in a holster, why not...OR is not Mississippi, where their courts have said you can open carry, but the WHOLE pistol must be visible.

    Personally do not like IWB holsters, I think they are uncomfortable, but if that is what you own, why not just tuchk you shirt behind the weapon.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    127
    I am going to say it is not 'openly carried' the word 'open' kind of suggests it is not covered in anyway or blocked from view. IWB holsters do hide the gun more then most OWB holsters..

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Out by Pendleton
    Posts
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by We-the-People View Post
    Can you say "test case"? The language of the law is "openly in belt holsters"......someone will say it's not openly when it's inside your waistband and some idiot judge will agree.
    This.

    You'd *possibly* win the case, maybe even likely, but you would still end up paying your attorney a lot more than a good OWB holster would cost. Why take the risk?

  11. #11
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426
    Quote Originally Posted by Xader
    Just as much of the firearm is readily visible as would be with an OWB, so I wouldn't see why not.
    +1

    Quote Originally Posted by 45 Fan
    I am going to say it is not 'openly carried' the word 'open' kind of suggests it is not covered in anyway or blocked from view. IWB holsters do hide the gun more then most OWB holsters.
    I disagree. A holster covers about the same amount whether it's on or in the waistband.
    The only part that shows in my OWB that wouldn't show IWB is the last 0.5" of the slide.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gunhobbit
    You'd *possibly* win the case, maybe even likely, but you would still end up paying your attorney a lot more than a good OWB holster would cost. Why take the risk?
    To clarify what some see as an abiguous situation.
    And in the resultant civil rights case, those damages could be part of the award or settlement.
    Quote Originally Posted by MLK, Jr
    The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort & convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge & controversy.
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie
    Citizenship is a verb.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 27:12
    A prudent person foresees the danger ahead and takes precautions.
    The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 31:17
    She dresses herself with strength and makes her arms strong.

  12. #12
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,279
    Quote Originally Posted by 45 Fan View Post
    I am going to say it is not 'openly carried' the word 'open' kind of suggests it is not covered in anyway or blocked from view. IWB holsters do hide the gun more then most OWB holsters..
    I disagree, and I don't like IWB holsters. The gun is covered by leather, canvas, plastic, or clothing the same part is visible(grip) on most setups. I don't like them because they are uncomfortable, and a pain for dropping drawers in the bathroom.
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Out by Pendleton
    Posts
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by MKEgal View Post
    To clarify what some see as an abiguous situation.
    And if it's "clarified" with a jail sentence?

    Any idea what an attorney, and a subsequent appeal, cost?

  14. #14
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    Quote Originally Posted by NRedmond View Post
    Anyone have any experience with it? I have been researching it to make sure it is ok legally and the only thing I can find in the ORS 166.250 is the part referring to "(3) Firearms carried openly in belt holsters are not concealed within the meaning of this section."

    Is an IWB holster considered a "belt holster"?

    From what I see I would think, it is legal.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	photo 1.jpg 
Views:	498 
Size:	79.7 KB 
ID:	10056
    Well, here is an OWB holster, on a belt...how much difference is there in exposed PISTOL?

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	CZ cropped.jpg 
Views:	254 
Size:	95.8 KB 
ID:	10081

    There is no way this second pistol and holster can be worn IWB...how much exposed pistol do you see??? (check carefully, you can see the butt of that big 6" Colt...Holster is a custom Ross hunting holster for a 6" Python.)

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Ross holster 002.jpg 
Views:	253 
Size:	78.1 KB 
ID:	10082

  15. #15
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    Quote Originally Posted by hermannr View Post
    Well, here is an OWB holster, on a belt...how much difference is there in exposed PISTOL?

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	CZ cropped.jpg 
Views:	254 
Size:	95.8 KB 
ID:	10081

    There is no way this second pistol and holster can be worn IWB...how much exposed pistol do you see??? (check carefully, you can see the butt of that big 6" Colt...Holster is a custom Ross hunting holster for a 6" Python.)

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Ross holster 002.jpg 
Views:	253 
Size:	78.1 KB 
ID:	10082
    I think the problem, before a court, where it would likely go, would be their determination of the intent of the legislature and their determination of the "reasonableness" of an officers actions in arresting you (the fourth amendment is all about REASONABLENESS under current stare decisis). Remember, the fourth amendment only protects us from UNREASONABLE searches and seizures and the Supreme Court has constructed a large number of "exceptions" to the fourth amendment......the automobile exception, exigent circumstances, reasonable suspicion, etc. etc. etc.
    "The Second Amendment speaks nothing to an unfettered Right". (Post # 100)
    "Restrictions are not infringements. Bans are infringements.--if it reaches beyond Reasonable bans". (Post # 103)
    Beretta92FSLady
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ons-Bill/page5

    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nothing in any of my posts should be considered legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a reputable attorney, not an internet forum.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    127
    It also isn't just about seeing the actual weapon...the iwb holster hides both parts of the holster and gun. They also tend to allow a shirt, even tucked in, to become obstructive. So, if you want to prove me wrong in court, feel free...but I wouldnt suggest trying it...unless you have a CHL...then who cares...

  17. #17
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,279
    Quote Originally Posted by 45 Fan View Post
    It also isn't just about seeing the actual weapon...the iwb holster hides both parts of the holster and gun. They also tend to allow a shirt, even tucked in, to become obstructive. So, if you want to prove me wrong in court, feel free...but I wouldnt suggest trying it...unless you have a CHL...then who cares...
    I am not sure about OR but in the rest of the country there have been people OCing with IWB holsters for a long time. Unless there is something in the law that outlaws IWB OCing it IS legal. What is not illegal is legal.
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Out by Pendleton
    Posts
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    I am not sure about OR but in the rest of the country there have been people OCing with IWB holsters for a long time. Unless there is something in the law that outlaws IWB OCing it IS legal. What is not illegal is legal.
    Make sure you express that sentiment to the arresting officer, prosecutor, judge, and jury in simple words, so they understand. While, of course, being the above-described "test case."

  19. #19
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,279
    Quote Originally Posted by Gunhobbit View Post
    Make sure you express that sentiment to the arresting officer, prosecutor, judge, and jury in simple words, so they understand. While, of course, being the above-described "test case."
    I have seen people OC IWB, there are members on this site who OC IWB. I personally find it uncomfortable, and as I carry a 51 navy with a 5.5 inch barrel it would really not be practical. BUT there have been several FL arrests for open carry/exposing firearm for just the weee bit of a firearm showing, not even the handle but a small portion of the barrel, or holster. That would indicate that if you can see the firearm(not just printing) it is not concealed. You should see what the definition of concealed is for your state. Here in NC I would be more concerned with a full flap holster than a IWB, even though a magistrate told me that it was OK.

    Maybe you can provide a court case, or cite that is is illegal in your state? Again whatever is not illegal, is legal.
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Out by Pendleton
    Posts
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    I have seen people OC IWB, there are members on this site who OC IWB. I personally find it uncomfortable, and as I carry a 51 navy with a 5.5 inch barrel it would really not be practical. BUT there have been several FL arrests for open carry/exposing firearm for just the weee bit of a firearm showing, not even the handle but a small portion of the barrel, or holster. That would indicate that if you can see the firearm(not just printing) it is not concealed. You should see what the definition of concealed is for your state. Here in NC I would be more concerned with a full flap holster than a IWB, even though a magistrate told me that it was OK.

    Maybe you can provide a court case, or cite that is is illegal in your state? Again whatever is not illegal, is legal.

    I've watched people run red lights.

    Doesn't mean it's legal.

    Just means they didn't get caught.

    If you don't get caught or arrested - great! More power to you! It's not hurting anyone, as best I can tell, and as such shouldn't be an issue.

    But keep your attorney's card handy, just to be on the safe side.

    Oh.

    Wait.

    NC.

    Not Oregon?

    Never mind - different states, different rules. My mistake for not paying attention.

  21. #21
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,279
    Quote Originally Posted by Gunhobbit View Post
    I've watched people run red lights.

    Doesn't mean it's legal.

    Just means they didn't get caught.

    If you don't get caught or arrested - great! More power to you! It's not hurting anyone, as best I can tell, and as such shouldn't be an issue.

    But keep your attorney's card handy, just to be on the safe side.

    Oh.

    Wait.

    NC.

    Not Oregon?

    Never mind - different states, different rules. My mistake for not paying attention.
    There is a red light law in OR? I assume their is or they would not be able to stop the ones they catch. NOW it is time to put a citation up for IWB being illegal in OR. Please cite the law?
    Last edited by WalkingWolf; 03-08-2013 at 08:04 PM.
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  22. #22
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    Quote Originally Posted by We-the-People View Post
    I think the problem, before a court, where it would likely go, would be their determination of the intent of the legislature and their determination of the "reasonableness" of an officers actions in arresting you (the fourth amendment is all about REASONABLENESS under current stare decisis). Remember, the fourth amendment only protects us from UNREASONABLE searches and seizures and the Supreme Court has constructed a large number of "exceptions" to the fourth amendment......the automobile exception, exigent circumstances, reasonable suspicion, etc. etc. etc.
    First let's start with Delaware V Prouse (US Supreme Court). The court ruled that random stops to check for a license for a licensed activity is illegal.

    The in Black (4th Circuit) and Thompson (10th circuit), both courts ruled that simple possession of a pistol is NOT good enough RAS to stop and detain someone. (Both Black and Thompson had been convicted of Felon in possession)

    Then, lets read ORS 166.250(3)..."(3) Firearms carried openly in belt holsters are not concealed within the meaning of this section..."

    So, the next question would be: Is an IWB holster a "Belt holster". As every IWB holster I have ever seen attaches to the belt is some fashion, usually with some sort of clip or loop...I would say an IWB holster fits the definition in ORS 166.250(3) of a "belt holster"

    And should you have a dispute about it with LE, I would think you could pick that LEO's pocket in federal court.

    Mississippi does not hold (the pistol must be completely visible) because OR law specifically says in a "belt holster" but does not define what a "belt holster" is ORS 166.210.

  23. #23
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    Hermanner......
    While the 10th circuit can be "persuasive" it is not "precendent" in Oregon (9th circuit). A more appropriate case citation would be the US Supreme court or a 9th circuit ruling. You simply can't rely on another circuit's published or unpublished decisions (particularlyu unpublished).

    The US Supreme Court has ruled that there is no firearms exception to the Fourth Amendment.

    Florida v J.L. 529 U.S. 266 (2000) Unanimous Supreme Court: “This Court also declines to adopt the argument that the standard Terry analysis should be modified to license a “firearm exception,” under which a tip alleging an illegal gun would justify a stop and frisk even if the accusation would fail standard pre-search reliability testing.”

    Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979)......."Stopping a car for no other reason than to check the license and registration was unreasonable under the 4th amendment."
    Stopping the IWB OC'er is equivalent to stopping a car to check of license. If a CHL is held (not in possession, simply held) then no violation exists. This is the same as stopping a driver to make sure they have a drivers license....and that has been held to be unlawful absent some specific violation.

    Under these two US Supreme Court precedents, there would be no RAS of a crime to suspect that an IWB OC'er (determined to be concealing) was in violation of the laws requiring a permit to conceal or felon in possession. Absent some additional justification that the officer can articulate as a basis for suspicion that the subject was violating the law, it would be difficult to overcome the fourth amendment prohibitions against unreasonable search and seizure. The SCOTUS has clearly stated that the mere possession of a firearm does NOT abbrogate fourth amendment protections (i.e. no firearms exception) and since Oregon is a "Shall Issue" state, there is no reasonable suspicion that a person carrying is in violation of the law. Further, the very fact that the officer is almost assured to testify "because I saw he had a firearm", it would be difficult to argue that he could BOTH see it and that it was concealed.

    Still, it's a test case and I wouldn't want to be footing the bill for the legal costs.
    "The Second Amendment speaks nothing to an unfettered Right". (Post # 100)
    "Restrictions are not infringements. Bans are infringements.--if it reaches beyond Reasonable bans". (Post # 103)
    Beretta92FSLady
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ons-Bill/page5

    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nothing in any of my posts should be considered legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a reputable attorney, not an internet forum.

  24. #24
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    Quote Originally Posted by We-the-People View Post
    Hermanner......
    While the 10th circuit can be "persuasive" it is not "precendent" in Oregon (9th circuit). A more appropriate case citation would be the US Supreme court or a 9th circuit ruling. You simply can't rely on another circuit's published or unpublished decisions (particularlyu unpublished).

    The US Supreme Court has ruled that there is no firearms exception to the Fourth Amendment.

    Florida v J.L. 529 U.S. 266 (2000) Unanimous Supreme Court: “This Court also declines to adopt the argument that the standard Terry analysis should be modified to license a “firearm exception,” under which a tip alleging an illegal gun would justify a stop and frisk even if the accusation would fail standard pre-search reliability testing.”

    Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979)......."Stopping a car for no other reason than to check the license and registration was unreasonable under the 4th amendment."
    Stopping the IWB OC'er is equivalent to stopping a car to check of license. If a CHL is held (not in possession, simply held) then no violation exists. This is the same as stopping a driver to make sure they have a drivers license....and that has been held to be unlawful absent some specific violation.

    Under these two US Supreme Court precedents, there would be no RAS of a crime to suspect that an IWB OC'er (determined to be concealing) was in violation of the laws requiring a permit to conceal or felon in possession. Absent some additional justification that the officer can articulate as a basis for suspicion that the subject was violating the law, it would be difficult to overcome the fourth amendment prohibitions against unreasonable search and seizure. The SCOTUS has clearly stated that the mere possession of a firearm does NOT abbrogate fourth amendment protections (i.e. no firearms exception) and since Oregon is a "Shall Issue" state, there is no reasonable suspicion that a person carrying is in violation of the law. Further, the very fact that the officer is almost assured to testify "because I saw he had a firearm", it would be difficult to argue that he could BOTH see it and that it was concealed.

    Still, it's a test case and I wouldn't want to be footing the bill for the legal costs.
    First of you you need to understand a Terry stop is a stop for suspician of a CRIME. A traffic violation, or walking down the street with an OC firearm is not a CRIME.

    Random stops for license checks of a licensed activity are not legal per the US Supreme Court's decision in Delaware V Prouse, and in Oregon, you do not even need a license to OC a firearm.

    The Black and Thompson decisions will be taken into accout if the 9th ever does have a case. Yes, they are not binding...but Delaware V Prouse is Binding.

  25. #25
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    Quote Originally Posted by hermannr View Post

    First of you you need to understand a Terry stop is a stop for suspician of a CRIME. A traffic violation, or walking down the street with an OC firearm is not a CRIME.

    Random stops for license checks of a licensed activity are not legal per the US Supreme Court's decision in Delaware V Prouse, and in Oregon, you do not even need a license to OC a firearm.

    The Black and Thompson decisions will be taken into accout if the 9th ever does have a case. Yes, they are not binding...but Delaware V Prouse is Binding.
    I understand that completely, I am currently an honors student in a criminology course of study (in addition to business) at a four year college. However, you may beat the rap but you can't beat the ride. Whether you are ultimately found to have been violated or not, it is a large expense to defend against the charges (even when they have no lawful foundation). Lawyers are in the $250 and hour range and you have to find one. Then they have to learn firearms laws as there are very few attorneys who are good at firearms laws (hence my Criminal Justice study).

    A friend, and fellow member here, just went through the process. Charges were ultimately dropped before trial but he still incurred attorney's expenses, lost time, hassles, and the confiscation of his property for a good amount of time.
    "The Second Amendment speaks nothing to an unfettered Right". (Post # 100)
    "Restrictions are not infringements. Bans are infringements.--if it reaches beyond Reasonable bans". (Post # 103)
    Beretta92FSLady
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ons-Bill/page5

    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nothing in any of my posts should be considered legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a reputable attorney, not an internet forum.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •