• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

Spotted Nessie Tonight

N

nickerj1

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2007
Messages
251
Location
, , USA
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.
 
IanB

IanB

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2006
Messages
1,896
Location
Northern VA
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).
 
skidmark

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
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


[align=left]Case Law[/align]

[align=left][font=Arial,Helvetica][size=+1]A Concealed Handgun[/size] :[/font]


[align=left]

[size=+1][font=Arial,Helvetica]1) [/font]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. "[/size]
[/align]​
[align=left][/align]
​
[align=left][size=+1]2) [font=Arial,Helvetica]"[/font]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).[/size]

[/align]

[align=left][size=+1]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.[/size]

[align=left][size=+1] 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.[/size]
[size=+1] The judgment of conviction is affirmed." - Lynwood Lee Main v. Commonwealth, (1995)[/size]
[size=+1][/size]​
​
[align=left]
​
[/align]


[align=left][size=+1]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) [/size][/align]

[align=left][size=+1]See Also: Weatherford v. Commonwealth, Va . App., (2005) ( Darkness does not allow gun to be in plain view?) [/size][/align]

[align=left][size=+1]5)[/size][size=+1] "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. "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.[/size][/align]
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." [size=+1]Schaaf v. Commonwealth, (1979) [/size]
[/align]​

[align=left][/align]

[align=left]and yet:[/align]

[align=left]Can't Stop for Bulge in Clothing [/align]


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



[size=+1]"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.[/size]
[/align]
[size=+1]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.[/size]
[/align]
[size=+1]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).[/size]

[size=+1] 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."[/size]


[align=left]
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.[/align]

[align=left]stay safe.[/align]

[align=left]skidmark[/align]
[align=left]edited to correct url - skidmark[/align]
 
G

gregma

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2007
Messages
618
Location
Redmond, Washington, USA
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?:question:
Click to expand...
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.
 
Tess

Tess

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2006
Messages
3,837
Location
Bryan, TX
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?:question:
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
sccrref

sccrref

Regular Member
Joined
May 11, 2007
Messages
741
Location
Virginia Beach, VA, , USA
imported post

skidmark wrote:
Be careful how you look at "partly concealed" as being OK because Virgiunia allows open carry!
Click to expand...

Although it does not come out and say it in the cases you referenced, if the persons did not a CHP from VA or from a state recognized by VA then they would be committing a crime. If they had said CHP it would not matter if the were CCing, OCing or something in between as they would be covered regardless of how it was or was not seen by the LEO.
 
skidmark

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
imported post

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

From http://www.virginia1774.org :



§ 18.2-308




[align=left]Case Law[/align]



[align=left][font=Arial,Helvetica][size=+1]A Concealed Handgun[/size] :[/font]
[/align]
Click to expand...
You could try not using a giant font. It's kind of annoying.
Click to expand...

Tomahawk -

It was a quick cut&paste from the web site. Thought the information was gemane to the issue at hand - especially with so many folks saying open carry law protected them without a CHP.

Sorry your feathers got ruffled.

stay safe.

skidmark
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top