Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Visibility of Mags in Pouches?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    6

    Post imported post

    So, I'm doing a lot of shopping around locally for some Mag Holsters. It seems pretty difficult to find certain stuff in my area. Lots of gun shops are selling out of accessories and whatnot. Double wide single pouches seem extinct. Anyway, to get to my question, during UOC, magazines must be in plain view. I've found the occasional Mag Pouch that almost completely conceals the Mag though. Is that okay, or are those specifically intended for LEOs? The pouch would be in plain view next to my holster, but the mags wouldn't be. I'm assuming that the requirement that mags are in plain sight is more to stop people from hiding them in pockets and whatnot, but I figure I should clarify first.

    On a side note, does anyone have any advice for OCing while wearing a coat or jacket? How much visibility constitutes "plain sight"? I was thinking I can wear the holster in the front, but with some coats, the gun wouldn't be visible from the side, only the front.

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lamma Island, HK
    Posts
    964

    Post imported post

    Well, I have been OC'ing for some time....Although I am not a lawyer, I believe that I have a firm understanding of the rules. Some of us may argue about the nuances, but basically, as long as your magazines are contained in a belt pouch instead of in your pocket it is not concealed, full coverage of the magazine or otherwise.

    When it comes to the visibility of magazines itself, it is what we call "unsettled law". There is no clear definition that we can use to determine concealed or not.

    As for a jacket or coat, when carrying your weapon you need to ensure that your clothing does not "substantially" conceal the firearm. It is a gray area however, because it is a subjective thing.

  3. #3
    Lone Star Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Seattle-ish, Washington, USA
    Posts
    714

    Post imported post

    jwarren116 wrote:
    but with some coats, the gun wouldn't be visible from the side, only the front.
    This jacket was recommended in another thread due to the price. It has a zipper down each side that you are supposed to pull the gun through for open carry, preventing any issues with the jacket getting in the way.

    http://www.lapolicegear.com/5ta5fijabrcl.html

    They also sell other styles with the same zipper access. I tried on the Sabre style at a local store, and didn't like the fit. It's very loose at the bottom (I do have a size 30 waist) . I'll probably end up getting one of these anyways for the zipper.

    Another option I've seen recommended is to purchase a large zipper, and pay a tailor (dry cleaner's, etc.) to sew it into the side of a jacket that you already own.

  4. #4
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    Theseus wrote:
    When it comes to the visibility of magazines itself, it is what we call "unsettled law". There is no clear definition that we can use to determine concealed or not.
    Actually, I think this is settled law.

    There is no statute that states a magazine cannot be concealed. I'm at a loss for my citation for the case law, but I'm certain we've discussed it here before... The court determined that a magazine is an integral part of the firearm, and concealing any part of a firearm is a violation of 12025.

    Since a magazine is the legal equivalent of an entire and intact firearm for the purposes of 12025, we can construe that all the statutory exemptions to 12025 apply to magazines as well as the rest of the firearm. Therefore, as long as you carry in an exposed holster, you meet the 12025(f) exemption, even if your holster conceals your magazines.
    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.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Decoligny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Rosamond, California, USA
    Posts
    1,865

    Post imported post

    CA_Libertarian wrote:
    Theseus wrote:
    When it comes to the visibility of magazines itself, it is what we call "unsettled law". There is no clear definition that we can use to determine concealed or not.
    Actually, I think this is settled law.

    There is no statute that states a magazine cannot be concealed. I'm at a loss for my citation for the case law, but I'm certain we've discussed it here before... The court determined that a magazine is an integral part of the firearm, and concealing any part of a firearm is a violation of 12025.

    Since a magazine is the legal equivalent of an entire and intact firearm for the purposes of 12025, we can construe that all the statutory exemptions to 12025 apply to magazines as well as the rest of the firearm. Therefore, as long as you carry in an exposed holster, you meet the 12025(f) exemption, even if your holster conceals your magazines.

    The specific case law is (People v. Hale 1974)


  6. #6
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748

    Post imported post

    CA_Libertarian wrote:
    There is no statute that states a magazine cannot be concealed. I'm at a loss for my citation for the case law, but I'm certain we've discussed it here before... The court determined that a magazine is an integral part of the firearm, and concealing any part of a firearm is a violation of 12025.

    Since a magazine is the legal equivalent of an entire and intact firearm for the purposes of 12025, we can construe that all the statutory exemptions to 12025 apply to magazines as well as the rest of the firearm. Therefore, as long as you carry in an exposed holster, you meet the 12025(f) exemption, even if your holster conceals your magazines.
    Good point! Hadn't thought of that. Although I guess one could argue that if a magazine was the legal equivalent of an entire firearm, then we couldn't have loaded magazines since they would be a loaded firearm. Got to love the wacky downward spiral of nonsense laws.

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    I disagree. A reading of the decision is instrumental.

    A firearm disassembled into two or more parts, can nevertheless constitute an operable weapon within the meaning of the Dangerous Weapons Control Law.
    http://login.findlaw.com/scripts/cal...3d/43/353.html
    (login required)

    bigtoe416 wrote:
    Although I guess one could argue that if a magazine was the legal equivalent of an entire firearm, then we couldn't have loaded magazines since they would be a loaded firearm.
    You're right, and this is yet another reason CA_Libertarian's interpretation doesn't mesh with the case law.

  8. #8
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    I agree that the Hale decision does not mesh with logic. However, the ruling is standing case law (to my knowledge).

    If you are found concealing a magazine, the prosecutor would likely get an easy conviction by citing this case.

    Having the magazine carried openly in a holster would qualify the 12025(f) exemption.


    Hale is bad law, and shouldn't be too hard to get overturned. The court erred seriously when it arbitrarily stated that 12025 applies to 'partially concealed' weapons. When the legislature does not provide a specific definition of the terminology used, the court must use the common meaning of the word.

    From FindLaw's legal dictionary:
    Conceal
    2 a: to place out of sight
    Note: A weapon need only be placed out of ordinary observation in order to be considered a concealed weapon.

    The prosecution failed to assert - let alone prove - that the firearm was placed 'out of ordinary observation.' In this case, the officer was immediately able to see the firearm. I believe most reasonable people would agree that a plainly visible object that is easily identified as a firearm is not concealed.
    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.

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    I was really disagreeing that Hale makes a magazine the legal equivalent to an entire firearm. If you read the decision, that conclusion is nearly impossible to reach.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    , California, USA
    Posts
    38

    Post imported post

    Then why is it that the instructions in court refer to a firearm having to be "substantially" concealed?

  11. #11
    Regular Member Decoligny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Rosamond, California, USA
    Posts
    1,865

    Post imported post

    marshaul wrote:
    I was really disagreeing that Hale makes a magazine the legal equivalent to an entire firearm. If you read the decision, that conclusion is nearly impossible to reach.
    "The carrying of concealed firearms is prohibited as a means of preventing physical harm to persons other than the offender." (People v. Jurado, 25 Cal.App.3d 1027, 1032 [102 Cal.Rptr. 498].) [2] In our opinion concealment of an essential component of a visible weapon, when done in such a fashion as to make the weapon readily available for use as a firearm, presents a threat to public order comparable to concealment of the entire firearm and falls within the prohibition of section 12025. [1b] In the light of the bizarre arsenal of weaponry Hale had installed around the driver's seat of his automobile, Officer Price had reasonable cause to suspect that a clip and ammunition for the automatic pistol might be hidden close at hand and to make a search for them."

    This section says that when the "essential component" i.e. the magazine, is concealed, in such a fashion as to make the weapon readily available for use as a firearm, it violates 12025.

    So in essence, if all that you have is a magazine and it is concealed, without the firearm being present, then it is not a concealed firearm.

    However, if you have the gun, and the magazine is concealed and the gun is not, it is a violation of 12025 and you WILLbe convicted.

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    Exactly right.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    22

    Post imported post

    I haven't seen discussion of EXTRA magazines.
    That is, if I have an unloaded openly carried firearm, and a loaded magazine openly carried in a belt pouch, thus openly carrying the entirety of the concealable weapon, can't I have MORE parts (in this case more loaded magazines CONCEALED in my pockets?

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    City of Angeles - San Fernando Valley, California, USA
    Posts
    158

    Post imported post

    We really need to get someone arrested for this so we can overturn Hale Theseus, what are you doing after you beat the 626.9 rap?

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    City of Angeles - San Fernando Valley, California, USA
    Posts
    158

    Post imported post

    Here are some great mags from a great local long time California holster maker: http://www.alfonsosgunleather.com/Pages/accessories.htm

    Lets support our local mom and pop vendors!!! Great belts and holsters too! http://www.alfonsosgunleather.com/Pages/concealed.htm (these are too beautiful to conceal)

    Pineda, the founder of Alfonso's of Hollywood, was born in Argentina on May 24, 1923 and grew up in Nicaragua. As a young man, Alfonso guided wealthy American sportsmen on alligator hunts. Alfonso took a byproduct of this business; the alligator hides, and turned them into fine leather goods for the tourists. In 1955, he founded his own business buying and selling alligator hides and manufacturing all kinds of custom leather goods such as handbags, wallets, belts and portfolios. In 1957, Alfonso traveled to the US, settling in California in 1959, where he found a job in the Property Department at Universal Studios in Hollywood. It was there that he first met Arvo Ojala, the designer of the popular Hollywood Fast Draw Holster. Alfonso was soon working for Ojala, producing Hollywood Fast Draw Holsters.[/b]

    Eventually Alfonso founded his own holster shop, Al and Dick's Holster & Gun Shop, with a partner. Approximately one year later, Alfonso became the sole owner and changed the name to Alfonso's of Hollywood. In one night's time he designed his excellent line of Fast Draw Rigs, known simply as the Number 1, Number 2, Number 3, and Number 4. All four were readily identified by the double stitching around the edges of the rigs. This was unique to the Alfonso line of Fast Draw rigs. Alfonso raised the holster higher on the belt than other Fast Draw rigs, and added more steel, including a steel plate in the holster side of the belt. This higher gun position and additional rigidity enhanced the speed of an Alfonso rig. By the time of the 1961 National Fast Draw Championship held annually in Las Vegas, Nevada and sponsored by Colt firearms and the Sahara Hotel and Casino, the Alfonso Number 2 was the most popular rig in attendance. Though best known for his beautiful Western rigs, many of which were made for Hollywood celebrities such as John Wayne, Gary Cooper, Jerry Lewis and Sammy Davis Jr., the shop offered a full line of sporting, police duty and concealment holsters.

    Sadly, Alfonso passed away in 1995. His son Omar Pineda has stepped forward and with the assistance of his Uncle Gus, a professional saddle and holster maker in his own right, has carried on the business.
    [/quote][/b]



  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    Justice76 wrote:
    I haven't seen discussion of EXTRA magazines.
    That is, if I have an unloaded openly carried firearm, and a loaded magazine openly carried in a belt pouch, thus openly carrying the entirety of the concealable weapon, can't I have MORE parts (in this case more loaded magazines CONCEALED in my pockets?
    I don't think this can be considered "settled" law.

    Logically, what you're suggesting makes sense, but I'm not volunteering to be the test case. :P

  17. #17
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    Post imported post

    Hale is published 12025 case law.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    31

    Post imported post

    Justice76 wrote:
    I haven't seen discussion of EXTRA magazines.
    That is, if I have an unloaded openly carried firearm, and a loaded magazine openly carried in a belt pouch, thus openly carrying the entirety of the concealable weapon, can't I have MORE parts (in this case more loaded magazines CONCEALED in my pockets?
    i too would like to know more about this

  19. #19
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    cato wrote:
    Hale is published 12025 case law.
    But Hale doesn't address the question.

  20. #20
    Regular Member demnogis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Orange County, California, USA
    Posts
    912

    Post imported post

    I am jumping in here because I can't find a clear answer to the question asked, "OC with jackets?"

    Is it correct to assume the safe approach would be to get a jacket or coat that does not extend further down than my holster belt? That way I'm warm and the firearm is visible?
    Gun control isn't about guns -- it is about control.

Posting Permissions

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