Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 29

Thread: Inside pants holster for open carry

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Edmonds, Washington, USA
    Posts
    41

    Post imported post

    Hi All,

    New member to the forum here, but have been reading/following for about a month now, and first off have to say, THANK YOU, for all of you showing the courage to stand up for our important rights.

    Basically my quesiton is this;

    Could I run into problems with a LEO, or just a freaked out citizen, if my inside the pants holstered gun is exposed? That's the most convenient way I CC (yes, I have my CPL), but now that I'm getting ready to try some OC, it would be nice to just use the same holster out of convenience.

    This may just be a silly question, as having my CPL with me, I guess it really wouldn't matter if it was partiall covered. I just don't want to be in a position where someone thinks I'm trying to cause a scene. If it's just better to lay it all out there when OC, then that's what I'll do.

    Thoughts? Thanks!

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Wa, ,
    Posts
    2,769

    Post imported post

    Which ever way you feel most comfortable is the way to carry. Welcome to the forum.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Edmonds, Washington, USA
    Posts
    41

    Post imported post

    Thanks Trigger... seems simple enough. There's so many times I'm jumping out of the car for a quick run into the grocery store, or something like that, and I hate going through the hastle of throwing my sport jacket back on just to cover up my gun.



    Edit: Yeah, I know, it's lazy

  4. #4
    Regular Member GreatWhiteLlama's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Bothell, Washington, USA
    Posts
    287

    Post imported post

    Welcome

    I have only been stopped and questioned by a LEO once and his justification for questioning me was do to the fact that I was carrying with an IWB holster. The reasoning was that it was "partially concealed" :quirky

    I now have an OWB holster...

    You can read my thread on this here:
    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum55/25883.html
    "...our media are palace eunuchs gazing avidly at the harem of power and stroking their impotent pens in time to the rape of our liberties."
    -Sarah Hoyt

    "America is at that awkward stage; it's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
    -Claire Wolfe

  5. #5
    Regular Member amzbrady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Marysville, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,522

    Post imported post

    I have asked the very same question including to what degree is your firearm considered concealed. I consider myself OC when I take my jacket off and my IWB CC weapon becomes exposed. I never did get an answer and dont know if there really is one the gives a definite 100% to the point answer. I guess a LEO could debate that the portion IWB makes it concealed even though the back portion of my weapon is exposed. I have a Bladetech with 2 snap belt loops, When I want to be completely OC I just pull the holster out and keep it on the inside of the belt. Doesnt flop around much but is only trigger retention, no hammer strap. These Guys are good here maybe someone can clarify it better. Be ready for lots of RCW's too. Most off Welcome to OCDO.
    If you voted for Obama to prove you are not a racist...
    what will you do now to prove you are not stupid?

    "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of "liberalism," they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." - Norman Thomas

    "They who can who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve niether liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Edmonds, Washington, USA
    Posts
    41

    Post imported post

    Ha ha, that's EXACTLY what I was thinking might happen. Noted, and thank you for sharing.

    You would think by the fact that you are allowing it to be exposed in an obvious manner that you are not actually trying to CC. Maybe the butt of your gun sticking way out in plain sight isn't obvious enough...

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Edmonds, Washington, USA
    Posts
    41

    Post imported post

    Hey GreatWhiteLlama... you OWB holster, is it a paddle holster? I've been considering picking up one of those as a substitute for my IWB holster. When my sport coat is on, I'm CC, when off, I'm OC, then no big deal with the "partially concealed" issue I guess.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Tacoma, WA, ,
    Posts
    886

    Post imported post

    Even with an OWB duty holster, you do not see much more of the actual firearm than you would with a CCW IWB holster, you just see more of the holster. No laws regarding the open or concealed carry of leather or kydex. If you have your CPL anyways, it does not really matter. Have your CPL with you, and you're covered no matter what the ill-informed officer wants to say...

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Edmonds, Washington, USA
    Posts
    41

    Post imported post

    Thank you all... this seems to be a pretty clear cut issue if I just keep my CPL on me at all times. You guys are awesome. And thanks for the welcome.

  10. #10
    Regular Member GreatWhiteLlama's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Bothell, Washington, USA
    Posts
    287

    Post imported post

    that kind of guy wrote:
    Hey GreatWhiteLlama... you OWB holster, is it a paddle holster? I've been considering picking up one of those as a substitute for my IWB holster. When my sport coat is on, I'm CC, when off, I'm OC, then no big deal with the "partially concealed" issue I guess.
    Not a lot of choices for my little Kahr P9, but this is what I decided on:

    [img]file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/April/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/moz-screenshot.png[/img]

    I picked a black one with a thumb-break
    "...our media are palace eunuchs gazing avidly at the harem of power and stroking their impotent pens in time to the rape of our liberties."
    -Sarah Hoyt

    "America is at that awkward stage; it's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
    -Claire Wolfe

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Edmonds, Washington, USA
    Posts
    41

    Post imported post

    Nice, I have a similar black holster for mine. I mostly use my IWB for convenience of being able to take it out/put it back on in a pinch.

  12. #12
    Regular Member amzbrady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Marysville, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,522

    Post imported post

    I have a Taurus Pt111 Millineum pro, No holsters specifically for it, but I was told by Taurus that I should find one to fit the Glock 26 and I should be fine. I bought a bladetech IWB holster for an xd, I love the holster so far have to shove it back down when I stand up after sitting, only beef is it hits my safety and flips it OFF, that cant be good, so until I heat the holster up and reshape it, I wont carry one in the pipe.
    If you voted for Obama to prove you are not a racist...
    what will you do now to prove you are not stupid?

    "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of "liberalism," they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." - Norman Thomas

    "They who can who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve niether liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575

    Post imported post

    I OC a lot with an IWB holster because its more comforatable in the car. I have yet to be confronted about it. Carry how ever you want as long as you have your CPL with you.

    Orphan

    Act like a free man& you will be treated like a free man.
    Throw me to the wolves and I will come back leading the pack.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Lakewood, WA
    Posts
    1,001

    Post imported post

    I've OC'd with an IWB before. Costco said disarm or GTFO, so I GTFO'd.
    Quote Originally Posted by SayWhat View Post

    Shooters before hooters.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Machoduck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Covington, WA & Keenesburg, CO
    Posts
    566

    Post imported post

    GreatWhiteLlama wrote:
    Welcome

    I have only been stopped and questioned by a LEO once and his justification for questioning me was do to the fact that I was carrying with an IWB holster. The reasoning was that it was "partially concealed" :quirky

    I now have an OWB holster...

    You can read my thread on this here:
    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum55/25883.html
    Llama, your posting above is what got me to write my blurb on RCW 9.41.270. I was infuriated at how you were treated. If someone can't read the RCWs for himself, he has no business being a cop. My examination of ''270'' goes like this (notice particularly the list of words and terms not included in ''270'' at the end):


    RCW 9.41.270, a layman's examination.


    My purpose here has been to apply ordinary readership skills to an examination of what the legislature meant in writing RCW 9.41.270. My belief is that the law was meant to be understood by anyone with ordinary reading skills but that you may have to read and think carefully to get the full meaning. The focus is on subsection(1) because people who open carry pistols face a certain amount of misunderstanding regarding what .270 means, thus what constitutes illegal behavior in Washington. I begin with an untouched version of RCW 9.41.270, then use a series of tools to sharpen the view of certain phrases by which to examine the intent of the writers. The definitions "type - A carry" and "type B carry" are my own tool for clarity. Type A means to carry the pistol in the holster; type B means an action with the pistol out of the holster.

    Washington Constitution, Article 1, SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS.
    The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.

    For reference, a verbatim copy of RCW 9.41.270 follows. (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.270)

    ************************************************** **********************

    RCW 9.41.270
    Weapons apparently capable of producing bodily harm -- Unlawful carrying or handling -- Penalty -- Exceptions.


    (1) It shall be unlawful for any person to carry, exhibit, display, or draw any firearm, dagger, sword, knife or other cutting or stabbing instrument, club, or any other weapon apparently capable of producing bodily harm, in a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons.

    (2) Any person violating the provisions of subsection (1) above shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor. If any person is convicted of a violation of subsection (1) of this section, the person shall lose his or her concealed pistol license, if any. The court shall send notice of the revocation to the department of licensing, and the city, town, or county which issued the license.

    (3) Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to or affect the following:

    (a) Any act committed by a person while in his or her place of abode or fixed place of business;

    (b) Any person who by virtue of his or her office or public employment is vested by law with a duty to preserve public safety, maintain public order, or to make arrests for offenses, while in the performance of such duty;

    (c) Any person acting for the purpose of protecting himself or herself against the use of presently threatened unlawful force by another, or for the purpose of protecting another against the use of such unlawful force by a third person;

    (d) Any person making or assisting in making a lawful arrest for the commission of a felony; or

    (e) Any person engaged in military activities sponsored by the federal or state governments.

    [1994 sp.s. c 7 § 426; 1969 c 8 § 1.]

    Notes:
    Finding -- Intent -- Severability -- 1994 sp.s. c 7: See notes following RCW 43.70.540.

    Effective date -- 1994 sp.s. c 7 §§ 401-410, 413-416, 418-437, and 439-460: See note following RCW 9.41.010.

    ************************************************** **********************



    .270 (1) redacted (#1): It shall be unlawful for any person to carry, exhibit, display, or draw any [weapon] in a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons.

    "firearm, dagger, sword, knife or other cutting or stabbing instrument, club, or any other weapon apparently capable of producing bodily harm," replaced by "weapon."

    "[C]arry, exhibit, display, or draw" refers to types of actions performed with [weapons]. "Draw" is relatively unambiguous but even so, drawing to "low ready" can have a totally different implied intent from "on target" but is clearly an out of the holster action. The other three terms, "carry, exhibit, [and] display" could all be given a Type A definition (in the holster) or a Type B definition (out of the holster).


    Somebody could construe "carry, exhibit, display" to refer to the simple act of open carry (type A definition). However, this definition would be incorrect. It would mean that the simple act of "bearing arms in defense of himself, or the state" would constitute intent to intimidate or warrant alarm and thus be illegal. Concealed carry requires a Concealed Pistol License and is therefore not a right. The Washington Constitution doesn't affirm concealed carry rights, only the right to "bear" arms, which by the process of elimination means to open carry. Thus, if the type A definition held, RCW 9.41.270 would be unconstitutional on its face.

    "[C]arry, exhibit, display, or..." refers to certain actions, which, by the nature of the definition you give them could in certain circumstances be threatening or warranting alarm. Thus, in the context of RCW 9.41.270, "display" couldn't have been meant by the Legislature to mean "carry around in a holster where all can see it," except in very special circumstances (the type A definition). It would have to have meant to "grasp in the hand and remove from the holster in preparation for use" (the type B definition) or in other words to "present" or draw the weapon. Similarly, "Exhibit" could mean either "in a holster, visible to all" (A) or "brought out for people to see and take note of" (B). Again, the second meaning would be called for, given the Constitution. "Carry" would necessarily refer to being held in the hand (B) rather than in the holster (A) for it to mean anything other than Constitutionally protected activity. Additionally, the very fact that the legislature provided qualifiers proves that they did not intend to restrict open carry in section .270.

    Let's replace "carry, exhibit, display, or draw" with "do something" and see if .270 still makes sense.
    .270 (1) redacted (#2) It shall be unlawful for any person to [do something with a weapon] in a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons. The meaning isn't substantially changed.

    "n a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place" is a conjunctive phrase, meaning that all the required elements must be present simultaneously for the condition in question to be met. A man loading a pistol at a gun range would hardly raise an eyebrow but might cause considerable comment if done at a coffee house. At the range one might dismiss whoops and shouts with "I guess he finally got one in the black" but at the coffee house one would pay much more attention.

    Each element above has myriad possibilities; in practice one must test actual or hypothetical events against the phrase in question rather than the other way around. There are just too many "what ifs".

    "[T]hat either manifests an intent to intimidate another..." is a phrase worthy of our attention. The key word is "intent"; one must show by his actions that putting another person in fear of his life or person is his purpose, not an accidental by-product. If a person openly carrying a pistol encounters someone with a phobia of guns and the phobic person screams in fear, this does not demonstrate an intent to intimidate, unfortunate though the occurrence may be. Also note, the intent must be to intimidate, not to inform, educate, or elucidate.


    "...or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons." is another phrase demanding analysis in light of the apparent misunderstanding many have, especially in the police ranks, as to what it means. The real problem many have with the word "warrants" is that they think it synonymous with "causes." It is not. Several dictionaries agree that the concept of justification is present in the definition of the word "warrants" but is absent in the central definition of the word "causes." Note also that what needs to be warranted is alarm, not attention, awareness, or amazement.


    A partial list of phrases, words, or terms that are not in RCW 9.41.270 follows:

    appropriate (appropriate is used 10 times in RCW 9.41 but never to describe the behavior of armed citizens)
    brandishing (brandish or brandishing is not anywhere in RCW 9.41)
    causes alarm
    causes ("causes" is not found anywhere in RCW 9.41)
    concealed or any definition thereof (except in .270 (2) loss of concealed pistol license for violation and conviction of (1))
    holster or any discussion thereof (not in any part of RCW 9.41)
    making people nervous
    safe (safety is never used in the context of devices on firearms)
    scaring people ("scare" or "scaring" is not to be found anywhere in RCW 9.41)
    the right to be unafraid
    the right to be free from fear

    Under these circumstances, is there a substantive difference between a pistol partially hidden be a pair of slacks and the same pistol partially hidden to the same degree by a holster?

    The above examination is a cleaned up version of the link below.

    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum55/26173.html

    MD



  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Spokane, Washington, USA
    Posts
    558

    Post imported post

    G22Paddy wrote:
    I've OC'd with an IWB before. Costco said disarm or GTFO, so I GTFO'd.
    Costco=CC. They don't need to know.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Lakewood, WA
    Posts
    1,001

    Post imported post

    Costco doesn't respect my right to carry, but they sure as hell respect my right to not shop there ever again.
    Quote Originally Posted by SayWhat View Post

    Shooters before hooters.

  18. #18
    Regular Member amzbrady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Marysville, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,522

    Post imported post

    Buy how will you ever do without your 5 gallon bucket of Mustard, 12 pack of deoderant, and your 100 pack of double A batteries?
    If you voted for Obama to prove you are not a racist...
    what will you do now to prove you are not stupid?

    "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of "liberalism," they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." - Norman Thomas

    "They who can who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve niether liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Union, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,256

    Post imported post

    GreatWhiteLlama wrote:
    Welcome

    I have only been stopped and questioned by a LEO once and his justification for questioning me was do to the fact that I was carrying with an IWB holster. The reasoning was that it was "partially concealed" :quirky

    I now have an OWB holster...

    You can read my thread on this here:
    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum55/25883.html
    The cop was wrong and out of order for stopping you, no probable cause what so ever, articulable or otherwise. By his way of thinking, if you have a outside the waist band holster that completely covers the gun except forthe butt, you would be concealed also. It ain't so and any cop that pulls that crap is just being a power mad butt head. Open Carry with an inside the waist waist band holster is perfectly legal.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    LaConner, Washington, USA
    Posts
    649

    Post imported post

    At this point I have to pipe up and say something in favor of Oregon's concealed carry law. Ours (.270) leaves far too much to interpretation and as the endless debates on this board clearly indicate, there is the potential for the courts to render the final interpretation. Oregon's law is cut-and-dried: their whole procedure is different from ours, which is why there is no reciprocity with us. I don't agree with much of what they do, mostly because their preemption law is much weaker than ours. What I do like is about their CC law. It's very simple: if anyone can detect the presence of a firearm it is considered to be exposed, and this means a lump under a shirt, or a corner of the handgrip showing under the shirttail, or whatever. Unintended exposure of the weapon is considered open carry. Penalty for such a violation is loss of the CPL. The point is, if you're going to carry concealed, then conceal it. Completely. Very simple.

    So should we change our CC law? I don't have an opinion on that. We are not Oregon.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Wa, ,
    Posts
    2,769

    Post imported post

    OK< OK< Which one is CONCEALED?





  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Union, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,256

    Post imported post

    Trigger Dr wrote:
    OK< OK< Which one is CONCEALED?



    Neither!

  23. #23
    Regular Member Machoduck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Covington, WA & Keenesburg, CO
    Posts
    566

    Post imported post

    I think the question should be which method shows more of the pistol than the other. Not that the answer would be any different. If your OWB holster shows below the waistline of your jacket how does anyone know that it's not a cell phone or some tool?

    MD

  24. #24
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953

    Post imported post

    Bear 45/70 wrote:
    Trigger Dr wrote:
    OK< OK< Which one is CONCEALED?



    Neither!
    From the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:

    Main Entry: con·ceal[/b]
    Pronunciation: \kən-ˈsēl\
    Function: transitive verb[/i]
    Etymology: Middle English concelen,[/i] from Anglo-French conceler,[/i] from Latin concelare,[/i] from com-[/i] + celare[/i] to hide — more at hell
    Date: 14th century
    1[/b] :[/b] to prevent disclosure or recognition of <conceal the truth>2[/b] :[/b] to place out of sight <concealed[/i] himself behind the door>
    synonyms[/b] see hide


    It would seem to me, and I consider myself to be a person of average intelligence, that if you haven't prevented the disclosure or recognition of the firearm it is not concealed. Under the second definition the firearm has to be "out of sight".

    If I can see an object that is recognizable as a firearm then it is not concealed even if "Dudley Do-Right" thinks so. His bosses will probably slap him with a dictionary if he takes it beyond the typical posturing and intimidation that goes with this kind of stop.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Edmonds, Washington, USA
    Posts
    41

    Post imported post

    Machoduck:

    I appreciate your work and examination of the RCW referencing what "displaying" could mean. It's unfortunate that some LEOs cannot seem to put forth the same type of effort in their reading, interpretation, and application of the law. You would think being in "law enforcement" they would be required to have a better grasp of such laws.

    Oh well, I guess that's why our founding fathers wrote that our rights are inalienable rights, to protect us from such ignorance.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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