• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

Inside pants holster for open carry

Machoduck

Machoduck

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2007
Messages
566
Location
Covington, WA & Keenesburg, CO
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
 
amlevin

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
imported post

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



Click to expand...
Neither!
Click to expand...
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.
 
T

that kind of guy

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2010
Messages
41
Location
Edmonds, Washington, USA
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.
 
amzbrady

amzbrady

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2009
Messages
3,521
Location
Marysville, Washington, USA
imported post

Richard6218 wrote:
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.
Click to expand...
arent they an OC state? why would you lose your cpl if it is exposed? I wouldnt like that, My expansion make for a definite print.
 
B

Bear 45/70

Regular Member
Joined
May 22, 2007
Messages
3,256
Location
Union, Washington, USA
imported post

amzbrady wrote:
Richard6218 wrote:
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.
Click to expand...
arent they an OC state? why would you lose your cpl if it is exposed? I wouldnt like that, My expansion make for a definite print.
Click to expand...
Yes, Oregon is an OC state, except their state preemption stinks. It allows city's to require a person to have a CPL to open carry. Which is just how stupid their laws are.
rolleyes.gif
 
amzbrady

amzbrady

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2009
Messages
3,521
Location
Marysville, Washington, USA
imported post

Bear 45/70 wrote:
amzbrady wrote:
Richard6218 wrote:
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.
Click to expand...
arent they an OC state? why would you lose your cpl if it is exposed? I wouldnt like that, My expansion make for a definite print.
Click to expand...
Yes, Oregon is an OC state, except their state preemption stinks. It allows city's to require a person to have a CPL to open carry. Which is just how stupid their laws are.
rolleyes.gif
Click to expand...
:shock:uh, ok...
 
B

Bear 45/70

Regular Member
Joined
May 22, 2007
Messages
3,256
Location
Union, Washington, USA
imported post

amzbrady wrote:
Bear 45/70 wrote:
amzbrady wrote:
Richard6218 wrote:
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.
Click to expand...
arent they an OC state? why would you lose your cpl if it is exposed? I wouldnt like that, My expansion make for a definite print.
Click to expand...
Yes, Oregon is an OC state, except their state preemption stinks. It allows city's to require a person to have a CPL to open carry. Which is just how stupid their laws are.
rolleyes.gif
Click to expand...
:shock:uh, ok...
Click to expand...

This is also why the wife and I just applied for out of state Oregon CPL so as to not run afoul of their total inconsistency.

Another good one is that it is illegal to carry a loaded handgun while riding a snowmobile or an ATV, CPL or not. However if the guy next to you is riding a motorcycle that is street legal, he can carry hishandgun loaded.
rolleyes.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top