-
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.
-
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 Holster
- Thread starter Lilcuzz
- Start date
dirtykoala
Regular Member
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2009
- Messages
- 644
imported post
Lilcuzz wrote:
Lilcuzz wrote:
its been covered before, i think the outcome was "no". i dont remember why though, and i dont see how an iwb would be anymore concealed than a owb holster than covers the entire barrel.
yelohamr
Regular Member
imported post
Take a look at the picture at the top of the page. The 2 ladies on the right.
Take a look at the picture at the top of the page. The 2 ladies on the right.
dirtykoala
Regular Member
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2009
- Messages
- 644
imported post
yelohamr wrote:
they might not be in CA
yelohamr wrote:
they might not be in CA
eraseallhope
Regular Member
imported post
the law says you have to be able to see it and recognize that its a firearm from 3 sides...
Front, side, and back...
So it should be legal... it is in Arizona
But I'm sure LEO would love the chance to jump on you for it and let a judge and courts figure it out later
the law says you have to be able to see it and recognize that its a firearm from 3 sides...
Front, side, and back...
So it should be legal... it is in Arizona
But I'm sure LEO would love the chance to jump on you for it and let a judge and courts figure it out later
CA_Libertarian
State Researcher
imported post
wewd wrote:
12025 only says it's illegal to conceal a handgun. I'm sure there's plenty of case law on the definition of "concealed", but the common definiton is, "to hide from view". So if it can be seen, it must not be hidden from view.
However, I would discourage the use of IWB holsters until the subject is thoroughly researched. The only case law I know of could be construed AGAINST the use of IWB carry. (And no, I won't cite the case until I know I can rebut it, as I don't want to do free research for the "other side".)
wewd wrote:
+1
12025 only says it's illegal to conceal a handgun. I'm sure there's plenty of case law on the definition of "concealed", but the common definiton is, "to hide from view". So if it can be seen, it must not be hidden from view.
However, I would discourage the use of IWB holsters until the subject is thoroughly researched. The only case law I know of could be construed AGAINST the use of IWB carry. (And no, I won't cite the case until I know I can rebut it, as I don't want to do free research for the "other side".)
flintlock tom
Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
imported post
The actual wording in PC 12025 is:
It would not be a stretch of logic to assert that an IWB holster is not "carried openly" on the belt.
In fact it could be argued that an IWB holster is specifically intended for concealment.
In my opinion this would not be an area of the law I would like to "test".
The actual wording in PC 12025 is:
Code:
"(F)Firearms carried openly in belt holsters are not concealed
within the meaning of this section."In fact it could be argued that an IWB holster is specifically intended for concealment.
In my opinion this would not be an area of the law I would like to "test".
mjones
Regular Member
imported post
eraseallhope wrote:
Bzzzzzt no citation, there is no definition of Concealed in CA.
However, there is a definition of an example of what is not concealed.
12025(f) Firearms carried openly in belt holsters are not concealed
within the meaning of this section.
eraseallhope wrote:
Bzzzzzt no citation, there is no definition of Concealed in CA.
However, there is a definition of an example of what is not concealed.
12025(f) Firearms carried openly in belt holsters are not concealed
within the meaning of this section.
mjones
Regular Member
imported post
flintlock tom wrote:
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?
flintlock tom wrote:
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?
eraseallhope
Regular Member
imported post
Depending on your iwb holster you can wear it under your belt outside the waistline of your pants and between your belt....
Sometims I do this at home with my iwb
Depending on your iwb holster you can wear it under your belt outside the waistline of your pants and between your belt....
Sometims I do this at home with my iwb