Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Look Ma; No Flap!

  1. #1
    Regular Member 1245A Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    north mason county, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,381

    Post imported post

    i always wondered if a LEO might try to claim my holstered P-38 was concealed, because it is so well enclosed?

    so i did some major cutting away of the excess and changing the flap strap to a thumb break retainer.






    EMNofSeattle wrote: Your idea of freedom terrifies me. So you are actually right. I am perfectly happy with what you call tyranny.....

    “If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”

    Stand up for your Rights,, They have no authority on their own...

    All power is inherent in the people,
    it is their right and duty to be at all times ARMED!

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , Washington, USA
    Posts
    10

    Post imported post

    I'm pretty sure that anyone who looks at this will realize that there's a gun there

    Went looking through the laws again...WA State doesn't seem to have a definition in the RCW that I could find or on the State Attourney General's website either :X

    Texas the state code reads:

    "Concealed handgun" means a handgun, the presence of
    which is not openly discernible to the ordinary observation of a reasonable
    person.


    I think that an obviousholsterworn outside the clothing is considered to be open carry regardless of if there's aflap across the back or not.

    But looking at your actual question, Yes. I definately think that there are some LEO's that might try to claim that it's still concealed. Look at that huge concealing flap over it! Try oc'ing it in Tacoma and see what else they try to claim :shock:

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,040

    Post imported post

    I have wondered several times about the way some peoples' IWB holsters and shirts would appear to "reasonable" observers. I don't have any but even a fold or pleat on an unbloused shirt could obscure the view enough for me to consider they were effectively "concealed".

  4. #4
    Regular Member John Hardin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Snohomish, Washington, USA
    Posts
    684

    Post imported post

    Lexington_Son wrote:
    Went looking through the laws again...WA State doesn't seem to have a definition in the RCW that I could find or on the State Attourney General's website either :X
    There isn't any definition in the RCW. I once asked a LEO friend about this and he said that if any part of the firearm is obscured, including by a body part, an officer might consider it concealed. I don't think this is reasonable, but it indicates how some LEOs may approach the situation.

    Granted this interpretation is somewhat silly as all holsters (except those screw-on clippy things) obscure some or most of the firearm. An obviously visible holster probably would not be considered concealed, but an IWB would likely be open for dispute.


Posting Permissions

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