• 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.

Definition of OC

DocV

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
204
Location
Virginia Beach, ,
imported post

What is the definition of Open Carry? I re-read the Viriginia Code, specifically:

§ 18.2-308. Personal protection; carrying concealed weapons; when lawful to carry.

A. If any person carries about his person, hidden from common observation, (i) any pistol, revolver, or other weapon designed or intended to propel a missile of any kind by action of an explosion of any combustible material; (ii) any dirk, bowie knife, switchblade knife, ballistic knife, machete, razor, slingshot, spring stick, metal knucks, or blackjack; (iii) any flailing instrument consisting of two or more rigid parts connected in such a manner as to allow them to swing freely, which may be known as a nun chahka, nun chuck, nunchaku, shuriken, or fighting chain; (iv) any disc, of whatever configuration, having at least two points or pointed blades which is designed to be thrown or propelled and which may be known as a throwing star or oriental dart; or (v) any weapon of like kind as those enumerated in this subsection, he shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. A second violation of this section or a conviction under this section subsequent to any conviction under any substantially similar ordinance of any county, city, or town shall be punishable as a Class 6 felony, and a third or subsequent such violation shall be punishable as a Class 5 felony. For the purpose of this section, a weapon shall be deemed to be hidden from common observation when it is observable but is of such deceptive appearance as to disguise the weapon's true nature.

Is an IWB holster considered hidden from common observation if no cover garment is worn? Is there a percentage of the weapon that has to be exposed?

I have a CHL and carry using a Milt Sparks Versa Max II IWB holster. It would be nice to be able to wear a tucked in polo shirt and jeans and be able to use it for OC. To me, the "true nature" of a full size service pistol is pretty obvious when worn that way.

Thanks for taking a newbie's question.

R/ DocV
 

eyesopened

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2007
Messages
731
Location
NOVA, Virginia, USA
imported post

OC with an IWB has been colorfully called Virginia Carry. As far as I know, there is no set % but as long as it is not hidden from common observation then you are fine. A LEO would be hard pressed to argue in front of a Judge that your exposed firearm's was hidden when the entire grip is easily visible. Welcome to the froums :)
 

kaiheitai17

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2007
Messages
619
Location
Islamabad, Pakistan
imported post

This question has been asked and answered in several different threads on this forum. General concensus is, as long as the piece can be recognized as a firearm, IWB and uncovered is fine. Some folks have a problem with that, but I think it is covered in Virginia case law. I do not recall the specific thread(s) but a search should find it (them) for you.

Any of you guys have more specifics?
 

BobCav

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2007
Messages
2,798
Location
No longer in Alexandria, Egypt
imported post

Hey DocV, welcome! Some states have tried to discourage OC by claiming that if ANY part of the gun is covered it wa concealed, but many courts have "shot" that one down. In VA, as long as it's clearly recognizable as a gun, you're good for OC. I would personally recommend against military style thigh holsters as they're not necessarrily "gun shaped" andcover most of the gun. An accidental cover of the little bit of the butt that sticks out could be consideredas concealing.

sm173.jpg


Oh, and you won't find if something's LEGAL in the law, only if it's illegal. If it ain't there, it's legal! Always a great idea to post here and ask, that's what we're here for!

Welcome and Happy OC'ing!
 

DocV

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
204
Location
Virginia Beach, ,
imported post

Thank you Gentlemen. I admit to being impatient re: search functions. My internet connection at work is woefully slow and times out frequently.:banghead: Your tax dollars at work!

I appreciate the information.

R/

DocV
 

DocV

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
204
Location
Virginia Beach, ,
imported post

Thanks guys. I appreciate the responses. I have heard crap from self appointed experts here and in other states like; " 60% of the weapon needs to visible" or "The weapon needs to be visible for 270 degrees".

While stuff like that is easy to dismissI have often found there is some grain of truth however it might have been interpreted.

Sounds like my BHP and VMII will see a lot more use this summer.

I appreciate it.

R/ DocV
 

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
imported post

A gun is not disguised if it is in a holster.... as a holster normally contains..

a gun!! :D


But it is going to really depend on the holster.
 

skidmark

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

One of the bestr resources for Virginia case law (how the courts have interpreted statutory law) regarding all things firearms is http://www.virginia1774.org . I recommend you look there.

IANAL, but have 20+ years professional dealing with law, policy and the interpretation thereof. PM me if you want a detailed layman's explanation of some point after you have looked at the case law. I'll try to assist your understanding it.

stay safe.

skidmark



[align=left]
[size=+1][font=Arial,Helvetica]
[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]
[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] [/align]​
[/font][/size]​
[/align]
 
Top