scot623
Regular Member
Simple question, did you start this thread seeking info because you plan to IHOC?
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
In hand open carry
- Thread starter Raggs
- Start date
Simple question, did you start this thread seeking info because you plan to IHOC?
DetroitBiker
Regular Member
I cant believe this thread is still open. (facepalm)
tattedupboy
Regular Member
If more states defined legal open carry as clearly as Arizona does (in AZ, it has to be a belt holster and only a portion of the holster needs to be visible for the weapon to not be considered concealed), then this wouldn't even be an issue. Personally, I wouldn't carry a gun in my hand out in public, holstered or not. To me, that's asking for the police to bother you or for a frantic man with gun call.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
Last edited:
scot623
Regular Member
That makes ALL of us.
scot623
Regular Member
fify
DrTodd
Michigan Moderator
"the act of carrying a handgun in one’s hand without any additional concealment is not sufficient to violate the CCW statute", People v Kincade, 61 Mich App 498, 504-505; 233 NW2d 54 (1975).
scot623
Regular Member
Odd it does not mention violating the brandishing statute. That is the issue we are all concerned with.
tattedupboy
Regular Member
DrTodd
Michigan Moderator
I'm not an attorney but in my unprofessional guess the charge was CCW, not "brandishing". The defense was only trying to defend their client from what the person was charged.
Since "Brandishing" is not defined in the statutes, one needs to look at the dictionary definition(s): either “to wave or flourish menacingly” or “to display ostentatiously, to exhibit in a showy manner”. In each of these definitions there is some sort of intent on the part of the carrier. If, as Raggs stated, the person carried the pistol in his hand in order to avoid a charge of CCW, and the person was traveling down a road, late at night, towards whom exactly would he be directing this behavior? However, walk into a busy restaurant doing the same, I think a person COULD make an argument that the carrier was brandishing.
Like most laws, the issue would have to be decided by a jury and if the jury could connect the behavior as being directed towards others in order to either "menace" or to "exhibit in a showy manner", there is a greater possibility of being convicted.
Like most laws, the issue would have to be decided by a jury and if the jury could connect the behavior as being directed towards others in order to either "menace" or to "exhibit in a showy manner", there is a greater possibility of being convicted.
Last edited:
DrTodd
Michigan Moderator
The premise for creating OCDO was to promote and defend the open carry of properly holstered handguns as we go about our normal, everyday lives. Used to see that (or words to that effect) as a header on the home page - believe it was a quote from John Pierce.
The Forum Rules as published are not an all inclusive legal tome defining every possible scenario. When something is perceived by the Administration as contrary to the best interests of OCDO, then there are always options. Public relations, public image will play a part in those decisions.
While carrying a holstered handgun in hand does not fit into the general intent of this forum, there may be some exceptions that may be narrowly applied. Nevertheless, it is a decidedly small point of reference and must stay within the bounds of legality as well as what the owners of the forum choose to allow on these pages.
This thread treads in a grey area insofar as adhering to the premise/intent of OCDO. It could easily be locked or deleted where it found to stray too far off course - too non-conforming to the rules, intent, premise of OCDO.
Post responsibly and with the good of the forum in mind.
The Forum Rules as published are not an all inclusive legal tome defining every possible scenario. When something is perceived by the Administration as contrary to the best interests of OCDO, then there are always options. Public relations, public image will play a part in those decisions.
While carrying a holstered handgun in hand does not fit into the general intent of this forum, there may be some exceptions that may be narrowly applied. Nevertheless, it is a decidedly small point of reference and must stay within the bounds of legality as well as what the owners of the forum choose to allow on these pages.
This thread treads in a grey area insofar as adhering to the premise/intent of OCDO. It could easily be locked or deleted where it found to stray too far off course - too non-conforming to the rules, intent, premise of OCDO.
Post responsibly and with the good of the forum in mind.
scot623
Regular Member
^I'd be willing to argue anyone who posts about IHOC is doing great harm to OCDO an to our local OC community. Any outsider who sees us 'discussing' such an idiotic concept is sure to paint us idiot gun nuts. There is zero benifit or practical reason to discuss "in hand open carry" for gods sake.
Ezerharden
Regular Member
TheQ
Regular Member
This would be the only acceptable thing to do in the case Raggs had mentioned. No belt, well then something else must be rigged... string... rope... I don't think there is any reason to IHOC unless, as I stated you are walking from house to vehicle, or walking in the woods looking for something to shoot.
+1,000,000
Raggs
Regular Member
I don't think I asked for a reason, I asked the opinion about the legality of it. As I pointed out earlier there are respected open carriers who think LGOC is stupid, but it is legal.
Evil Creamsicle
Regular Member
In that particular hypothetical scenario, if no belt or rig was available other than concealment...
Well, you'd have to decide what your priorities are, given how bad that part of town hypothetically is.
scot623
Regular Member
Ah, so you brought up an idiotic topic just for fun. Got it. The OC community thanks you for dragging us collectively down. Why not start a thread asking if its legal to duct tape a holstered pistol to your head while wearing a chicken suit next. It's "just hypothetical", no harm in discussing it right? It won't make us look stupid.
Care to point out where in this thread IHOC was cited to be legal? I see where it was cited to not be concealed carry. You've made a complete 180 from asking if it's legal to SAYING it's legal. Explain?
Last edited:
PDinDetroit
Regular Member
That was going to be my suggestion...
dougwg
Regular Member
Immature people making the job of furthering guns rights harder and harder because of their shallow mentality is why many of us have made our presents here on OCDO more rare.
Try thinking before posting people.
BTW: Contrary to popular myth, there are huge amounts of stupid questions.
Try thinking before posting people.
BTW: Contrary to popular myth, there are huge amounts of stupid questions.