• 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.

IWB open carry?

pullnshoot25

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
1,139
Location
Escondido, California, USA
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!
 

Decoligny

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
1,865
Location
Rosamond, California, USA
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.
 

cato

Newbie
Joined
Oct 29, 2006
Messages
2,338
Location
California, USA
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.
 

pullnshoot25

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
1,139
Location
Escondido, California, USA
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.
 

MudCamper

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2007
Messages
709
Location
Sebastopol, California, USA
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.
 

pullnshoot25

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
1,139
Location
Escondido, California, USA
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/showthread.php?t=115858
 

LostCoast

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2008
Messages
49
Location
Ventura County, California, USA
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.
 

pullnshoot25

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
1,139
Location
Escondido, California, USA
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.
 

Decoligny

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
1,865
Location
Rosamond, California, USA
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.
 

cato

Newbie
Joined
Oct 29, 2006
Messages
2,338
Location
California, USA
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. :)
 

LostCoast

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2008
Messages
49
Location
Ventura County, California, USA
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. :cuss:

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.
 

MudCamper

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2007
Messages
709
Location
Sebastopol, California, USA
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.
 

Decoligny

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
1,865
Location
Rosamond, California, USA
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.
 

LostCoast

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2008
Messages
49
Location
Ventura County, California, USA
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
 

cato

Newbie
Joined
Oct 29, 2006
Messages
2,338
Location
California, USA
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.
 

pullnshoot25

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
1,139
Location
Escondido, California, USA
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.
 

MudCamper

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2007
Messages
709
Location
Sebastopol, California, USA
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.
 

pullnshoot25

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
1,139
Location
Escondido, California, USA
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.
 

poothrowingape

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2008
Messages
210
Location
fresno, California, USA
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
 

Robin47

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2008
Messages
545
Location
Susanville, California, USA
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
 
Top