• 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.

Calif. OC on belt but jacket or coat may cover

wewd

wewd

Regular Member
Joined
May 5, 2009
Messages
664
Location
Oregon
imported post

Theseus wrote:
I am sorry, but cite?
Click to expand...

Agreed. He is mixing up California law with law from other states. The stuff he is quoting about the gun being visible from three sides and your car being an extension of your home are simply not the law in California. Your car is certainly not an extension of your home here. If that were the case it would be legal to have a loaded, concealed handgun in your car, which it is not.

As far as visibility goes, you need to use common sense. "Visible from three sides" is not the written law nor is it case law. To my knowledge there is no binding case law in California which defines what is and what is not concealed. Open carry has not been done enough in this state post-Mulford for there to be a significant amount of case law. PC 12025(f) says "Firearms carried openly in belt holsters are not concealed within the meaning of this section." but that is not to be construed as the only acceptable method of carry, merely an example of what is legal. Carrying in a car with the seatbelt (and perhaps the center console) partially obscuring the holster, has not been tested. My unqualified advice would be that as long as it is clearly visible and identifiable as a firearm to the casual observer, it is not concealed. I am not a lawyer.
 
R

RMafera

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2010
Messages
34
Location
San Diego, California, USA
imported post

wewd wrote:
Theseus wrote:
I am sorry, but cite?
Click to expand...

Agreed. He is mixing up California law with law from other states. The stuff he is quoting about the gun being visible from three sides and your car being an extension of your home are simply not the law in California. Your car is certainly not an extension of your home here. If that were the case it would be legal to have a loaded, concealed handgun in your car, which it is not.

As far as visibility goes, you need to use common sense. "Visible from three sides" is not the written law nor is it case law. To my knowledge there is no binding case law in California which defines what is and what is not concealed. Open carry has not been done enough in this state post-Mulford for there to be a significant amount of case law. PC 12025(f) says "Firearms carried openly in belt holsters are not concealed within the meaning of this section." but that is not to be construed as the only acceptable method of carry, merely an example of what is legal. Carrying in a car with the seatbelt (and perhaps the center console) partially obscuring the holster, has not been tested. My unqualified advice would be that as long as it is clearly visible and identifiable as a firearm to the casual observer, it is not concealed. I am not a lawyer.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry about this, I definitely did not properly articulate what I wanted to say.

Concerning the firearm being visible from three angles is not being in legislation. Wewd is correct, this is one of those things that needs to be tested. I stated this as a general rule of thumb; a way to make sure you wouldn't get falsely charged with carrying a concealed weapon. In other words, don't wear anything that could possibly cover your firearm from any angle.

Concerning your vehicle as an extension of your home: this is true with exceptions (concealed carry as an example). What I meant (but did not bring about properly) was that you have very similar rights with your vehicle as your home in respects to the 4th amendment of search and seizure. I was stating this concerning how you are not required to tell law enforcement you have a firearm with you, just as you wouldn't have to if they came to your home (granted you are a law abiding citizen and you are not lying to them). Again though, I, personally, would tell them to avoid a barrel against my head.

Sorry again for not being clear in my post. I promise I'll post more carefully in the future.

Best!

Mafera
 
D

Diesel-n-Lead

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2010
Messages
82
Location
, California, USA
imported post

This thread highlights one of the serious flaws in the existing gun laws, their ambiguity. CPC 12025 mentions nothing regarding what constitutes "concealed on his or her person". As such, I would have to say that it would depend on existing legal precedent. However, that doesn't mean that a desperate DA or judge wouldn't try to set a new precedent. My advice: If you are going to wear a jacket that might obscure a belt holstered gun then invest in a drop-leg holster.
 
T

Theseus

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
964
Location
Lamma Island, HK
imported post

Diesel-n-Lead wrote:
This thread highlights one of the serious flaws in the existing gun laws, their ambiguity. CPC 12025 mentions nothing regarding what constitutes "concealed on his or her person". As such, I would have to say that it would depend on existing legal precedent. However, that doesn't mean that a desperate DA or judge wouldn't try to set a new precedent. My advice: If you are going to wear a jacket that might obscure a belt holstered gun then invest in a drop-leg holster.
Click to expand...
One of the advantages to not having precedent is the ability to use the notice argument. For example, when 626.9 exempts private property without defining private property and then says private property isn't private property by expanding a previously inconceivable definition of private property you can argue that you were not given constructive notice that would have allowed you to reasonably prevent breaking the law. . . IANAL, but this is my basic understanding.
 
R

RMafera

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2010
Messages
34
Location
San Diego, California, USA
imported post

Theseus wrote:
Diesel-n-Lead wrote:
This thread highlights one of the serious flaws in the existing gun laws, their ambiguity. CPC 12025 mentions nothing regarding what constitutes "concealed on his or her person". As such, I would have to say that it would depend on existing legal precedent. However, that doesn't mean that a desperate DA or judge wouldn't try to set a new precedent. My advice: If you are going to wear a jacket that might obscure a belt holstered gun then invest in a drop-leg holster.
Click to expand...
One of the advantages to not having precedent is the ability to use the notice argument. For example, when 626.9 exempts private property without defining private property and then says private property isn't private property by expanding a previously inconceivable definition of private property you can argue that you were not given constructive notice that would have allowed you to reasonably prevent breaking the law. . . IANAL, but this is my basic understanding.
Click to expand...
In an ideal world that would be true. However, when it comes to protecting yourself and your property, Kalifornia is not very ideal and you probably wouldn't get far with that defense :(
 
T

Theseus

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
964
Location
Lamma Island, HK
imported post

It does rely on the reasonableness of your lack of notice argument. Take mine for example. The courts have continually refused to provide any definition of private property as used in 626.9(c)(2) but will always add reason why it isn't private property.

There is no case precedent to suggest that, for the purposes of 626.9, that a private property parking lot to a business is not private property. Since they have not provided me guidance to be able to determine what is or isn't private property for the purposes of 626.9 they have failed to provide me constructive notice and are basically creating an ex post facto law.
 
1245A Defender

1245A Defender

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
4,365
Location
north mason county, Washington, USA
imported post

wasnt there a sign in that parking lot, that claimed it was private property?
and the court wouldnt let that be admitted into evidence?
i just about sh_ it a brick reading how screwed you were by the prosecution and the trial, and the violations of your rights and due prossess in the trial!!
i will be following your updates and wish you good luck!!
 
I

inbox485

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2009
Messages
353
Location
Riverside County, California, USA
imported post

RMafera wrote:
The gun has to be 100% visible from three angles to not be considered concealed. If you want to wear a jacket I suggest you get a super sexy sheep-skin jean jacket like I have :D. The bottom of the jacket sits right at my hips, directly above my firearm so there's no way it could accidentally become concealed.
Click to expand...
Negative. Just substantially unconcealed. Reading some case law gave my the impression that the critical element is that the majority of the frame or receiver is exposed and it would be clear to a casual observer that what you had was a firearm.

Driving with the seat belt partially covering is fine, again, because it is an extension of your home.
Click to expand...
Not only is that not true in CA it is the exact opposite. Even if your car IS your home, it does not qualify for the residence exceptions. It also doesn't qualify for the same level of 4A protection that your house does. I don't think any state has ever been successfully challenged on a duty to declare law.

You are not legally required to tell an officer that you are OCing a firearm, but I would just to give them a heads up and to avoid him seeing it himself and putting a gun in your face.
Click to expand...

If they can see it, they will. If they can't, they don't need to know. There is no reason to say anything to them.[/quote]
 
Gundude

Gundude

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
1,691
Location
Sandy Eggo County
imported post

RMafera wrote:
Driving with the seat belt partially covering is fine, again, because it is an extension of your home.

- Mafera
Click to expand...
You are confusing concealed with visible. An example I like to use....If you are UOC'ing and standing behind a 5 ft wall, someone on the other side can't see your weapon. It's not visible, but also not concealed. So sitting in your car with the seat belt and console blocking the view of your weapon isn't concealing.
 
H

heliopolissolutions

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2009
Messages
542
Location
, ,
imported post

inbox485 wrote:
If they can see it, they will. If they can't, they don't need to know. There is no reason to say anything to them.
Click to expand...
[/quote]
My heart and soul says don't talk to the fuzz.

For a while I also considered insisting on removing my firearm from my holster myself, but then I realized that to a LEO watching the situation from afar might think I was going to draw on the officer e-checking. So now I let them draw it to check it, its unloaded (yes I know, they're never "unloaded") so the chances of negligent discharge is less likely.



Similarly, police do not react well to surprise, for whatever training they may have changing the variables of a situation often invokes to mind the portions of their training that says "FIRE!!!!".

Of course this is situationally dependant, but if he asks you to step out of a vehicle and then sees a gun...he might flip his spit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top