jfrey123
Regular Member
Most of us know the phrase above. It is part of the legal definition of a concealed firearm under NRS 202.3653, and it is the method of which we grade the unregulated act of open carry in Nevada. Having a discussion on another forum about car carry and if a seat belt or center console in the way causes you to become concealed or not (we all know it's not), I had a thought. I know some guys here are very well versed in "legal-ese", so I'd like to bounce an idea off of everybody. (Long post alert, I'll do my best).
I've always addressed the above statement in the following way: "If I can look at you and tell you're carrying a firearm, then it's not concealed." To me, that's a cut and dry issue. In that regard, the general consensus would be if a jacket or shirt accidentally covers it, it becomes concealed and is a crime. Suddenly today I'm not so sure and I want to challenge that idea a bit. If you check the definition of "observe", it seems to automatically more and just a look. To observe something means to become aware of it, to perceive it, to notice it. "Ordinary" means obviously not using any special means, which is how I always used the idea of just looking at someone to define concealed or open. I'm not searching, metal detecting, etc, I'm simply observing you.
So when it comes to the momentary, "accidental" concealment, now I'm up in the air. I'm talking true, accidental concealment here, the wind blowing your jacket over the gun for example. You aren't "intentionally" ...carrying upon a person in a manner not discernible... It was accidental and it happened for just a few seconds, and if the cop were to continue to observe you, he would see the gun. Ergo, not concealed because he could see it. The law does not define concealed as "...carried upon a person in a manner not discernible for a brief moment or a quick glance." We'd be really screwed if it did, since my pistol isn't discernible to you if I'm facing away from you in a crowd, right?
I'm starting to believe that phrase is more powerful than I had originally thought. Ordinary observation seems to imply that an officer would have to be watching you for a period of time, truly observing you, and honestly not notice the firearm. Seems to blow away the idea of accidental felonies if you truly aren't trying to carry in a deviant way...
Thoughts? I'm I making sense to anyone here? This thought tied into another whole discussion about a certain scenario, but I thought warranted further conversation.
I've always addressed the above statement in the following way: "If I can look at you and tell you're carrying a firearm, then it's not concealed." To me, that's a cut and dry issue. In that regard, the general consensus would be if a jacket or shirt accidentally covers it, it becomes concealed and is a crime. Suddenly today I'm not so sure and I want to challenge that idea a bit. If you check the definition of "observe", it seems to automatically more and just a look. To observe something means to become aware of it, to perceive it, to notice it. "Ordinary" means obviously not using any special means, which is how I always used the idea of just looking at someone to define concealed or open. I'm not searching, metal detecting, etc, I'm simply observing you.
So when it comes to the momentary, "accidental" concealment, now I'm up in the air. I'm talking true, accidental concealment here, the wind blowing your jacket over the gun for example. You aren't "intentionally" ...carrying upon a person in a manner not discernible... It was accidental and it happened for just a few seconds, and if the cop were to continue to observe you, he would see the gun. Ergo, not concealed because he could see it. The law does not define concealed as "...carried upon a person in a manner not discernible for a brief moment or a quick glance." We'd be really screwed if it did, since my pistol isn't discernible to you if I'm facing away from you in a crowd, right?
I'm starting to believe that phrase is more powerful than I had originally thought. Ordinary observation seems to imply that an officer would have to be watching you for a period of time, truly observing you, and honestly not notice the firearm. Seems to blow away the idea of accidental felonies if you truly aren't trying to carry in a deviant way...
Thoughts? I'm I making sense to anyone here? This thought tied into another whole discussion about a certain scenario, but I thought warranted further conversation.
Last edited: