imported post
flintlock tom wrote:
In my opinion this would not be an area of the law I would like to "test".
I'm with Tom, I don't know that I wouldn't do it personally.
However,as I understand it,there is caselaw available which indicates that in CA there is no such thing as 'partial concealment' i.e. the concealable firearm is either
concealed or
not concealed.
Unfortunately, I don't have reference to these cases handy so I will have to bring that info back later.
But, I can reference where I'm headed to look. Over at Calguns where the recent change to 12031 was heavily discussed (12050 Exemption only valid while carrying in the condition for which you are licensed) people were worried that this now made us 'like Texas' Namely, that accidently exposing your loaded firearm while carrying licensed and concealed can result in criminal charges. It was brought up that existing case law would cover us because 'incidental exposure of a concealed firearm' has readily been upheld as being concealed. So, if that's the case, isn't the converse also true? And is the converse close enough to cover IWB open carry?