Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 28

Thread: Spotted Nessie Tonight

  1. #1
    Regular Member IanB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Northern VA
    Posts
    1,896

    Post imported post

    u·ni·corn (yn-kôrn)

    NOUN: 1. A fabled creature symbolic of virginity and usually represented as a horse with a single straight spiraled horn projecting from its forehead.
    2. A patriotic American who carries a firearm openly on ones person while out in public.
    loch·ness mon·ster (lŏkh-ns mnstr)

    NOUN: 1. A cryptid, claimed to inhabit Scotland's Loch Ness, the most voluminous freshwater lake in Great Britain.
    2. A patriotic American who carries a firearm concealed on ones person while out in public, but does such a bad job concealing it the informed onlooker can spot the weapon.
    Was at Subway in Annandale tonight (Bradlick Shopping mall) and as I walked in the door I noticed a young guy doing a poor job CC'ing a handgun on his right side. (I always check out everyone when I walk into a business) By young, I mean this guy barely looked 21. He was wearing shorts and a t-shirt. The t-shirt was pulled over a ballistic nylon holster, which was peeking out the bottom of his shirt by about two inches. The butt of the gun was printing big time as well, judging by the size it was a compact class pistol like a Glock 19. I tried to get a look at the bottom of the holster, it had some identifying company stitching on it, but my stare made the guy nervous and he put his right hand in his shorts pocket, covering the gun with his forearm. I know he saw me looking at it, and I know I made him nervous that I had "made" him out. I don't think he's one of us, I've never seen him before. I almost asked him what he carries, but I didn't want to freak him out any more than I already had.

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator longwatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Fauquier Co, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,297

    Post imported post

    I may be a 'nessie' myself sometimes. Also do fanny pack carriers or tac vest guys count as nessies? I'd say talk to him but then again I haven't gotten the nerve to ask the guys with the vests and fanny packs if they are heeled myself.

  3. #3
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , Indiana, USA
    Posts
    1,606

    Post imported post

    nakedshoplifter wrote:
    u·ni·corn (yn-kôrn)

    NOUN: 1. A fabled creature symbolic of virginity and usually represented as a horse with a single straight spiraled horn projecting from its forehead.
    2. A patriotic American who carries a firearm openly on ones person while out in public.
    loch·ness mon·ster (lŏkh-ns mnstr)

    NOUN: 1. A cryptid, claimed to inhabit Scotland's Loch Ness, the most voluminous freshwater lake in Great Britain.
    2. A patriotic American who carries a firearm concealed on ones person while out in public, but does such a bad job concealing it the informed onlooker can spot the weapon.
    Was at Subway in Annandale tonight (Bradlick Shopping mall) and as I walked in the door I noticed a young guy doing a poor job CC'ing a handgun on his right side. (I always check out everyone when I walk into a business) By young, I mean this guy barely looked 21. He was wearing shorts and a t-shirt. The t-shirt was pulled over a ballistic nylon holster, which was peeking out the bottom of his shirt by about two inches. The butt of the gun was printing big time as well, judging by the size it was a compact class pistol like a Glock 19. I tried to get a look at the bottom of the holster, it had some identifying company stitching on it, but my stare made the guy nervous and he put his right hand in his shorts pocket, covering the gun with his forearm. I know he saw me looking at it, and I know I made him nervous that I had "made" him out. I don't think he's one of us, I've never seen him before. I almost asked him what he carries, but I didn't want to freak him out any more than I already had.
    Well if he had a license/permit -- how does it matter?


  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator longwatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Fauquier Co, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,297

    Post imported post

    He might not have had a permit and wouldn't be happy at being outed as a criminal.

  5. #5
    Regular Member IanB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Northern VA
    Posts
    1,896

    Post imported post

    On one hand, it doesn't. VA is an OC state, so him exposing the firearm isn't an issue.

    On the other hand, why bother concealing if you are going to be sloppy about it and do a sub-par job that exposes the weapon? I was CC'ing too, but I guarantee neither he or anyone else in there had any idea.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Spokane, WA, ,
    Posts
    40

    Post imported post

    I wondered about that very scenario. I live in an OC state (WA) and I have a CWP. If I am CCing and my weapon is partially exposed or poorly concealed, have I broken the law?

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    I'm sure I print sometimes, especially in the summer, when I'm wearing an undershirt and a T-shirt for cover. Why not OC, then? Sometimes I'm not in the mood for attention. Most of the people who are scared of guns won't notice printing, and those who do notice (like you)usually don't care.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    79

    Post imported post



    I have days when i do what i call sloppy CC. Basically this means i carry concealed but don't really worry to much about whether i'm printing a little or if my slightly over sized shirt is a little to short & lets the tip of my holster peek out. Jeans, 6 pocket camo pantsor shorts & a tee shirt are my normal dress w/ an owb holster.

    You would be suprised at how few people will notice something like that. Most people are trained to go around in condition white & don't have a clue. Those of us who carry are generally much more observant & aware of our surroundings & will pick up on these things............................................ .....................DF1

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    79

    Post imported post

    HOLYROLLER wrote:
    I wondered about that very scenario. I live in an OC state (WA) and I have a CWP. If I am CCing and my weapon is partially exposed or poorly concealed, have I broken the law?


    I'm no lawyer but if your in an open carry state i don't see how printing or partial exposure could be breaking the law............................................... ..............DF1

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    About the tip of the holster: It's so common for people to carry cell phones or PDAs on their belts these days, it's no wonder the average non-carrier wouldn't give it a second thought when they see it.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Richmond, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    534

    Post imported post

    I have to admit that I am sometimes guilty of "indifferent concealed carry", usually when an unbuttoned coat covers my rig on a cold day.

    Here in KY, no big deal, and the CDWL covers me.

    Nonetheless, Nekkid's OP has given me food for thought.

    Perhaps CONCEALED really ought to be CONCEALED?

    Is it not possible that unintentional "flashing",or careless CC, could possibly alarm folks rather more than OC, which is unmistakeable and unambiguous? Might the sight of an indifferently concealed gun generate more "MWAG" calls than plain old OC?

    I am not too sure about this, what do y'all think about it?

    TrueBrit.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Spokane, WA, ,
    Posts
    40

    Post imported post

    TrueBrit wrote:
    I have to admit that I am sometimes guilty of "indifferent concealed carry", usually when an unbuttoned coat covers my rig on a cold day.

    Here in KY, no big deal, and the CDWL covers me.

    Nonetheless, Nekkid's OP has given me food for thought.

    Perhaps CONCEALED really ought to be CONCEALED?

    Is it not possible that unintentional "flashing",or careless CC, could possibly alarm folks rather more than OC, which is unmistakeable and unambiguous? Might the sight of an indifferently concealed gun generate more "MWAG" calls than plain old OC?

    I am not too sure about this, what do y'all think about it?

    TrueBrit.
    Agreed. The impression may be that you are trying to hide something (besides the gun).

  13. #13
    Founder's Club Member OC-Glock19's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Woodbridge, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    561

    Post imported post

    TrueBrit wrote:
    Might the sight of an indifferently concealed gun generate more "MWAG" calls than plain old OC?

    I am not too sure about this, what do y'all think about it?
    I've had a CC permit for about 8 years and I've always been a "sloppy concealed carrier" since Virginia is an open carry state. I find that a deeply concealed gun is very uncomfortable. I've never ever had anyone confront me or call the police though. Several times people have noticed my gun and commented on it, but I wouldn't call that a confrontation.

  14. #14
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Of course there is this one other aspect.

    If you are in a 7-Eleven or that sort of public venue, and a police officer notices, you might get a demand from himto see your CHP.


    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    Tell, him, "Sure officer. I keep it taped to the inside of my holster."

  16. #16
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Ocean Shores, WA
    Posts
    593

    Post imported post

    Tomahawk wrote:
    Tell, him, "Sure officer. I keep it taped to the inside of my holster."
    That would be something to see.

    LoveMyCountry

  17. #17
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , Indiana, USA
    Posts
    1,606

    Post imported post

    longwatch wrote:
    He might not have had a permit and wouldn't be happy at being outed as a criminal.
    I thought most of us were in agreement that criminals do not use holsters?? :P

  18. #18
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Tomahawk wrote:
    Tell, him, "Sure officer. I keep it taped to the inside of my holster."
    Sounds good on the surface.

    LEO229's reply would just be, "I'll check it after I run your serial number."
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Chambersburg,Pa, ,
    Posts
    92

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    Tomahawk wrote:
    Tell, him, "Sure officer. I keep it taped to the inside of my holster."
    Sounds good on the surface.

    LEO229's reply would just be, "I'll check it after I run your serial number."
    you guy's are lucky I wasn't drinking anything when i read that, or i'd be sponsoring a "new computer" fundraiser, cause it surely would have been spit everywhere with how hardI laughed..........but on the topic at hand, i think i'm guilty of sloppy CC as well, but agree that most people just don't notice.....

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Corbin, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    45

    Post imported post

    I dress for my comfort, not other peoples. OC is legal, so if it shows/prints- big fat hairy deal. It has been in the mid to high 90's and humid for a while here. If I DO conceal it, the cover will be thin.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    251

    Post imported post

    I'm confused as to why printing a little bit is considered "sloppy". I do it intentionally because:
    a) BG's and sheeple never notice.
    b) Cops and you guys will notice if you stare at me long enough.

    Why b? Because if I see a reasonable looking fellow printing a bit, I feel safer that there's another GG around. Especially if I'm not carrying for some reason. I assumed all GGs felt this way and wanted to reciprocate the curtesy.

    Now, two inches showing of the holster kind of lets everyone know you're trying to carry concealed, so it's a little ineffective.

  22. #22
    Regular Member IanB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Northern VA
    Posts
    1,896

    Post imported post

    I consider it "sloppy" because (no disrespect to ballistic nylon holster wearers) if you are going to CC, you should spend the money and get proper gear. Nylon holsters like the one he was wearing normally have a single nylon loop for belt attachment. It's not a tight fit and most times the butt of the firearm will flop outboard from your body, likethe Subway guys holster did. If you havelove handles (this guy did) it makes the "flop" even worse. A good CC rig is gunmodel specific (not generic), will hold the firearm securely, and keep it tucked in close to your body to reduce printing. Not trying to knock the Subway guy, but the holster looked like the cheapest thing he could find at Walmart. I'm guessing it was not designed for his gun (one size fits all type).

  23. #23
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682

    Post imported post

    Be careful how you look at "partly concealed" as being OK because Virgiunia allows open carry!

    From http://www.virginia1774.org :



    § 18.2-308


    Case Law


    A Concealed Handgun :




    1) Slayton v. Commonwealth, 41, Va, App. 101, 582 S.E. 2d 448, June 24, 2003, "Except for a "couple of inches" of the butt of the handgun protruding from Slayton's pocket, the rest of the weapon was completely hidden. And even those "couple of inches" were observed by Deputy Spencer only during the close-quarters encounter of a weapons frisk, not beforehand....Slayton disagrees, arguing that the firearm was not hidden from common observation because Deputy Spencer observed a portion of the butt protruding from Slayton's pocket and immediately knew it to be a handgun. Anyone else observing Slayton from that vantage point, he contends, might likewise have seen it.... Unlike a factfinder at trial, "reasonable law officers need not 'resolve every doubt about a suspect's guilt before probable cause is established.'" Id. (quoting Torchinsky v. Siwinski, 942 F.2d 257, 260 (4th Cir. 1991)). We reject, therefore, Slayton's assertion that the alleged insufficiency of the evidence for a conviction necessarily precludes a finding of probable cause. Because Deputy Spencer had probable cause to believe Slayton illegally possessed a concealed weapon, Spencer had authority both to arrest Slayton and to search him incident to that arrest. "

    2) "Referring to Code 18.2-308, the Supreme Court of Virginia has stated "'[t]he purpose of the statute [is] to interdict the practice of carrying a deadly weapon about the person, concealed, and yet so accessible as to afford prompt and immediate use.'" Code 18.2-308.2(A) defines a concealed weapon as one "hidden from common observation." "Such a weapon is 'hidden from common observation when it is observable[,] but is of such deceptive appearance as to disguise the weapon's true nature.'" Therefore, where a weapon is "hidden from all except those with an unusual or exceptional opportunity to view it," it is hidden from public view and "concealment of it in this fashion [is] unlawful." Here, the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, demonstrates that initially McKay was unable to see the gun "because [Fountain's] leg was next to it." Further, once Fountain got out of the car and McKay "stuck [his] head in the car," he could see "very little" of the pellet gun - namely, "just the very back of the grip" of the gun, protruding above the seat. From this evidence, the fact finder could infer beyond a reasonable doubt that the pellet gun was "hidden from all except those with an unusual or exceptional opportunity to view it" and therefore, that it was concealed from public view. " - James Fountain v. Commonwealth, (2002).



    3) "The officer later testified that he did not see the gun when he first saw the defendant because "of the bag over his right side." Similarly, the trial court could have reasonably inferred that the gun was not visible to the officer because it was covered with the duffle bag.

    If the gun was in the defendant's right rear pocket and its handle, the only part extending outside of his pocket, was covered by the duffle bag, the weapon was hidden from common observation. It was hidden from all except those with an unusual or exceptional opportunity to view it. The defendant had no permit to carry a weapon so hidden from public view. Therefore, his concealment of it in this fashion was unlawful.
    The judgment of conviction is affirmed." - Lynwood Lee Main v. Commonwealth, (1995)




    4) "Appellant Robert B. Leith was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon in violation of Code 18.2-308. Leith contends that because his pistol was in the locked console of his automobile, the pistol was not a concealed weapon carried "about his person" and was not "readily accessible to him." We disagree and affirm his conviction." - Leith v. Commonwealth 17 Va. App 621 (1994)


    See Also: Weatherford v. Commonwealth, Va . App., (2005) ( Darkness does not allow gun to be in plain view?)


    5) "Handbags are made in various sizes, colors and styles, and some are designed to carry a great number of articles deemed necessary or convenient by the carrier. The bags are often supported by shoulder straps and are easily opened and closed by devices such as zippers, buckles or stays. A pistol carried in such a bag is not only near and about the carrier's person, hidden from common observation, but in some handbags it is so accessible that it could be fired without being removed therefrom. "[i]t is so connected with the person as to be readily accessible for use or surprise if desired.. . ." Sutherland, supra, 109 Va. at 835, 65 S.E. at 15.

    A gun in a saddlebag, although not readily accessible, did provide a measure of protection to a horseman traveling primarily in rural areas. It did not pose a serious and immediate threat to others. A gun in a shoulder bag or a large handbag is accessible and could pose a major problem and danger to the general public." Schaaf v. Commonwealth, (1979)


    and yet:


    Can't Stop for Bulge in Clothing



    Sattler v. Commonwealth, Va. App. (1995).



    "In Stanley, we held that it was unreasonable for police officers to conclude that a person on a motor scooter was armed and dangerous because a police officer saw a bulge in the person's pocket following a traffic stop. 16 Va. App. at 877, 433 S.E.2d at 515.

    The evidence at the suppression hearing failed to prove that the officer had specific and articulable facts upon which to conclude that Sattler was armed and dangerous. The officer initially detained Sattler solely for the purpose of issuing a summons for a traffic infraction. Sattler was not under arrest. The officer offered no reason to support a belief that Sattler was armed or dangerous or that he possessed illegal drugs.

    The officer searched Sattler solely because of his general policy of searching every person entering his vehicle. In every encounter, "Terry requires reasonable, individualized suspicion before a frisk for weapons can be conducted." Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325, 334 n.2 (1990). The officer's generalized policy of frisking all persons does not satisfy the restrictions imposed by Terry. "Indeed, if everyone is assumed to be armed and dangerous until the officer is satisfied that he or she is not, then officers would be able to frisk at will -- a result not contemplated by the Fourth Amendment." State v. Garland, 636 A.2d 541, 548 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1994).

    Accordingly, we hold that the trial judge erred in finding that the officer's search was reasonable and in refusing to suppress the seized evidence."



    If you have not visited http://www.virginia1774.org I invite you to do so. Not only does it have a great legal section, it has perhaps the best history of Virginia's RKBA, as well as an excellent history of the Revolutionary War.


    stay safe.


    skidmark

    edited to correct url - skidmark
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Redmond, Washington, USA
    Posts
    618

    Post imported post

    HOLYROLLER wrote:
    I wondered about that very scenario. I live in an OC state (WA) and I have a CWP. If I am CCing and my weapon is partially exposed or poorly concealed, have I broken the law?
    Might be better asked in the WA forum, but to answer your question, no you have not broken the law. If you have a CCP and have it with you, then it doesn't matter if you can not see the firearm, "think" you can see the firearm, can partially see the firearm, or can fully see the firearm. You are covered in all situations.

  25. #25
    Founder's Club Member Tess's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Alexandria, Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,765

    Post imported post

    gregma wrote:
    HOLYROLLER wrote:
    I wondered about that very scenario. I live in an OC state (WA) and I have a CWP. If I am CCing and my weapon is partially exposed or poorly concealed, have I broken the law?
    Might be better asked in the WA forum, but to answer your question, no you have not broken the law. If you have a CCP and have it with you, then it doesn't matter if you can not see the firearm, "think" you can see the firearm, can partially see the firearm, or can fully see the firearm. You are covered in all situations.
    It depends on the state. Texas used to have a "fail to conceal" provision and, if I recall correctly (I don't live there any longer) now can cite you for "intentionally failing to conceal"

    I wonder how indifferent concealment would be viewed there?
    Laws alone can not secure freedom of expression; in order that every man present his views without penalty there must be spirit of tolerance in the entire population. -Albert Einstein

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
  •