Results 1 to 22 of 22

Thread: IWB open carry?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Escondido, California, USA
    Posts
    1,140

    Post imported post

    So I have an IWB holster for my Makarov. Clearly, one can see that there is a gun in the holster when I wear it in an open fashion but I am wondering what the law says on the matter. If I remember the code correctly, it says that anything at the waist level is considered OK, granted it is not covered up.

    Here are pics of the holster.




    The reason I ask is because I may or may not be getting a Utilikilt and the legality of this will affect my purchase.

    Thanks guys!


  2. #2
    Regular Member Decoligny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Rosamond, California, USA
    Posts
    1,865

    Post imported post

    This could be a grey area. PC 12025 (f) states that firearms carried openly in a belt holster are not considered concealed.

    The question is basically what does "carried openly" entail?

    I know of no case law on this, and personally wouldn't want to be a test case.

    An overzealous LEO might just take the partial concealment to mean that it is concealed. You might beat the rap, but you would still take the ride.

    If you are going to Open Carry, then OPEN Carry, if you are going to Conceal Carry, then CONCEAL Carry.

    Somewhere in the middle could slide either way in court.

  3. #3
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    Post imported post

    I'll find the case law later but it says if any part of the firearm is concealed it is a 12025 violation. Then again what I see in that picture is a belt holster openly worn (wish I were a judge!). For OC, I'd avoid an IBW at this time.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Escondido, California, USA
    Posts
    1,140

    Post imported post

    cato wrote:
    I'll find the case law later but it says if any part of the firearm is concealed it is a 12025 violation. Then again what I see in that picture is a belt holster openly worn (wish I were a judge!). For OC, I'd avoid an IBW at this time.
    Its times like these that make me wish I were a lawyer/judge so I can over rule all this bullcrap.

    I have a cop looking into it for me but judging by the way he hasn't called me back I am guessing that he is stumped. Apparently, no one in his 21 years of duty has ever asked that question.

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member MudCamper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Sebastopol, California, USA
    Posts
    710

    Post imported post

    Logically, the firearm is no more concealed in an IWB holster worn that way than in an OWB holster. However, we all know the law, particularly case law like Hale, is not logical. The IWB holster could very easily be argued to be a 12025 violation. I would not do it.



  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Escondido, California, USA
    Posts
    1,140

    Post imported post

    MudCamper wrote:
    Logically, the firearm is no more concealed in an IWB holster worn that way than in an OWB holster. However, we all know the law, particularly case law like Hale, is not logical. The IWB holster could very easily be argued to be a 12025 violation. I would not do it.

    Unfortunately, logic evades even the smartest of people about 99% of the time.

    See my post of calguns.net for the aftermath
    http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=115858


  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Ventura County, California, USA
    Posts
    49

    Post imported post




    Half empty of half full..hmmm I would like to see a law that states that if the part of a gun normally exposed in a holster is all you need showing to not be concealed. Basically making this type of holster legal and as long as above the trigger is showing your good. That would also make a pocket holster that conforms legal also.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Escondido, California, USA
    Posts
    1,140

    Post imported post

    LostCoast wrote:


    Half empty of half full..hmmm I would like to see a law that states that if the part of a gun normally exposed in a holster is all you need showing to not be concealed. Basically making this type of holster legal and as long as above the trigger is showing your good. That would also make a pocket holster that conforms legal also.
    True that. Maybe I will call into the San Diego department to see what is up. This whole thing is kind of irking me to tell you the truth. You know... me, being a good citizen and trying to do what is right and then every public servant interpreting the law their own way and further restricting my already restrictive rights? Yeah, it sucks.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Decoligny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Rosamond, California, USA
    Posts
    1,865

    Post imported post

    The law is vague. The police (in general) would probably push for the harshest interpretation and thus go for partially concealed = concelaed.

    If Cato says he has case law on it, I would believe him. He said he will find it and post it.

  10. #10
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    Post imported post

    Decoligny wrote:
    The law is vague. The police (in general) would probably push for the harshest interpretation and thus go for partially concealed = concelaed.

    If Cato says he has case law on it, I would believe him. He said he will find it and post it.
    I think it is "People v Hale" (hate that case). It's in the "how to own a gun and stay out of jail" book. Don't know where I put that book and I've been putting in lots of OT lately too. Time for bed! Sorry for the delay...I'll look for a quote and citation on my days off.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Ventura County, California, USA
    Posts
    49

    Post imported post

    I have that book here somewhere, will look today and post if it's in there.

    They sure have us over a barrel with all this broad interpatation, no conceal, 'May Issue', unloaded, school zone locked, no Calif. constitutional right, 10 shot mag, liberal BS.

    This new way to interpret law with a moral view instead of the right to an individual is killing me. They need to spell out what is legal more than what is illegal to start to end this madness.

    If they go after semi auto's and don't grandfather we are doomed and that will end 90% of my collection, I would be defensless except for the pump scatter gun and a few bolt rifles. The cost of revolvers would double or more.

    can you tell I'm pissed....sorry to get off holsters, didn't mean to just rant.

  12. #12
    Founder's Club Member MudCamper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Sebastopol, California, USA
    Posts
    710

    Post imported post

    LostCoast wrote:
    If they go after semi auto's and don't grandfather we are doomed and that will end 90% of my collection, I would be defensless except for the pump scatter gun and a few bolt rifles. The cost of revolvers would double or more.

    can you tell I'm pissed....sorry to get off holsters, didn't mean to just rant.
    Don't worry. The tide has turned. Yeah, we'll still have to fight, but I think we're winning. I bet we'll see the end of the AW ban, the 10-round limit, the "safe" handgun list, the bogus issue CCW policies, and 12031, all within 10 years.



  13. #13
    Regular Member Decoligny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Rosamond, California, USA
    Posts
    1,865

    Post imported post

    cato wrote:
    Decoligny wrote:
    The law is vague. The police (in general) would probably push for the harshest interpretation and thus go for partially concealed = concelaed.

    If Cato says he has case law on it, I would believe him. He said he will find it and post it.
    I think it is "People v Hale" (hate that case). It's in the "how to own a gun and stay out of jail" book. Don't know where I put that book and I've been putting in lots of OT lately too. Time for bed! Sorry for the delay...I'll look for a quote and citation on my days off.
    People v. Hale deals with an actual "part" of the gun being concealed, as in specifically the magazine. I don't know if they could interpret the case to mean "a portion" of the gun, or evenif your shirt hangs over the top half inch of the open carry gun in a belt holster, and I don't know if they would go the other way with IWB being concealed or not. I know that I for now just want to stay in the absolute balck and white defined law.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Ventura County, California, USA
    Posts
    49

    Post imported post

    this means you can not conceal Mag's right? but you could have say bullets in your pocket? so mags would have to be in a belt holder and not say a jacket/vest typeholder? like a tac vest that is made to hold Mags for instance?



    off point, but you have me thinking out loud





  15. #15
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    Post imported post

    Decoligny wrote:
    cato wrote:
    Decoligny wrote:
    The law is vague. The police (in general) would probably push for the harshest interpretation and thus go for partially concealed = concelaed.

    If Cato says he has case law on it, I would believe him. He said he will find it and post it.
    I think it is "People v Hale" (hate that case). It's in the "how to own a gun and stay out of jail" book. Don't know where I put that book and I've been putting in lots of OT lately too. Time for bed! Sorry for the delay...I'll look for a quote and citation on my days off.
    People v. Hale deals with an actual "part" of the gun being concealed, as in specifically the magazine. I don't know if they could interpret the case to mean "a portion" of the gun, or evenif your shirt hangs over the top half inch of the open carry gun in a belt holster, and I don't know if they would go the other way with IWB being concealed or not. I know that I for now just want to stay in the absolute balck and white defined law.
    Ok, yes it appears that the "if any part of a gunconcealed is't concealed" comes from Hale...still I'd say the IWB is anunsettled point of law not clearly addressed in the PC or case law so Hale is all we've got as a yard stick.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Escondido, California, USA
    Posts
    1,140

    Post imported post

    cato wrote:
    Decoligny wrote:
    cato wrote:
    Decoligny wrote:
    The law is vague. The police (in general) would probably push for the harshest interpretation and thus go for partially concealed = concelaed.

    If Cato says he has case law on it, I would believe him. He said he will find it and post it.
    I think it is "People v Hale" (hate that case). It's in the "how to own a gun and stay out of jail" book. Don't know where I put that book and I've been putting in lots of OT lately too. Time for bed! Sorry for the delay...I'll look for a quote and citation on my days off.
    People v. Hale deals with an actual "part" of the gun being concealed, as in specifically the magazine. I don't know if they could interpret the case to mean "a portion" of the gun, or evenif your shirt hangs over the top half inch of the open carry gun in a belt holster, and I don't know if they would go the other way with IWB being concealed or not. I know that I for now just want to stay in the absolute balck and white defined law.
    Ok, yes it appears that the "if any part of a gunconcealed is't concealed" comes from Hale...still I'd say the IWB is anunsettled point of law not clearly addressed in the PC or case law so Hale is all we've got as a yard stick.
    Freaking lame. Of course, no cop will sign off on a legitimate gun owner and law-abiding citizen on doing IWB, even for such a cool thing as a kilt, so I guess I am SOL and have to buy a kydex holster. Not terribly expensive, but it is just one more thing on top of the kilt when it would just look so much cooler with my leather ones.

  17. #17
    Founder's Club Member MudCamper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Sebastopol, California, USA
    Posts
    710

    Post imported post

    pullnshoot25 wrote:
    Freaking lame. Of course, no cop will sign off on a legitimate gun owner and law-abiding citizen on doing IWB, even for such a cool thing as a kilt, so I guess I am SOL and have to buy a kydex holster. Not terribly expensive, but it is just one more thing on top of the kilt when it would just look so much cooler with my leather ones.
    I don't see the problem. You can wear a belt with your kilt:

    http://www.utilikilts.com/?page_id=30

    And get yourself a nice leather OWB holster to go with it.



  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Escondido, California, USA
    Posts
    1,140

    Post imported post

    MudCamper wrote:
    pullnshoot25 wrote:
    Freaking lame. Of course, no cop will sign off on a legitimate gun owner and law-abiding citizen on doing IWB, even for such a cool thing as a kilt, so I guess I am SOL and have to buy a kydex holster. Not terribly expensive, but it is just one more thing on top of the kilt when it would just look so much cooler with my leather ones.
    I don't see the problem. You can wear a belt with your kilt:

    http://www.utilikilts.com/?page_id=30

    And get yourself a nice leather OWB holster to go with it.

    True you can wear a belt but I am questioning the effectiveness of the ones I already have. I really like mine and I don't want to get one that hangs by a single belt loop (a la western) because I find them uncomfortable and I hate them moving around.

    We shall see, I am going to test fit my brother's kilt in short order.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    fresno, California, USA
    Posts
    210

    Post imported post

    LostCoast wrote:
    this means you can not conceal Mag's right? but you could have say bullets in your pocket? so mags would have to be in a belt holder and not say a jacket/vest typeholder? like a tac vest that is made to hold Mags for instance?



    off point, but you have me thinking out loud


    i recently found out from another thread that carrying a mag concieled is just as bad as a weapon. as for bullets im not exactly sure.

    right now i have a .22 bullet in my pocket from a hunting trip last weekend. i had a brick of .22 ammo in my backpack and i guess some got out of the box and stayed in my backpack. Earlier today a bullet fell out of my backpack in class. no one noticed though, people suprisingly dont notice as many things as you think they would

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Susanville, California, USA
    Posts
    529

    Post imported post

    HI All,

    An old times told me 20 years ago, that the U.S. Marshals way was

    "If a gun barrel, or the butt of a gun was Recognizable in the waste ban

    then it was NOT a concealed".Holstered or not !Might check the

    U.S. Marshals and find the answer. Robin47

  21. #21
    Founder's Club Member MudCamper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Sebastopol, California, USA
    Posts
    710

    Post imported post


  22. #22
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    Hale doesn't adress this issue specifically, but we know the courts in CA are known for their ability to defy logic. Imagine them getting to take a whack at the definition of concealed! Not a pretty prospect...

    Now, in an ideal world where our courts are fair:

    Since the legislature did not provide a clear definition for "concealed" in the statute, the court must use it's common/ordinary definition. This means they will look it up in their dictionary and then apply that definition. (In reality they torture both the English language and logic to bend that definition to their will.)

    Here's Merriam-Webster's take on the meaning of the word "conceal":

    1 : to prevent disclosure or recognition of <conceal the truth>
    2 : to place out of sight <concealed himself behind the door>
    If you could get an honest reading of the definition, I think a 12025 conviction would be thrown out as long as the weapon is clearly visible and recognizable as a firearm. Looking at the pictures in the OP there is no way the firearm is concealed.

    So, the real problem here is that we cannot trust the courts to apply the law fairly. You better be able and willing to either do your time or put up a lot of money to mount a good defense (and then possibly do the time anyhow).
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •