Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 26

Thread: Open carry in belt holster only?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    71

    Post imported post

    California penal code section 12025 states in part

    (f) Firearms carried openly in belt holsters are not concealed
    within the meaning of this section.


    Does this mean that you must carry your weapon openly only in a belt holster? If this is not so, why does the law specify a belt holster? Is there case law, or any other statutes that clear this up?

    Is this open to interpretation to the arresting officer or DA?



  2. #2
    Regular Member wewd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    664

    Post imported post

    It is merely an example of what is not concealed, and is not to be construed as the only legal method. Any firearm carried in plain sight is obviously not concealed.
    Do you want to enjoy liberty in your lifetime?

    Consider moving to New Hampshire as part of the Free State Project.

    "Live Free or Die"

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    71

    Post imported post

    wewd wrote:
    It is merely an example of what is not concealed, and is not to be construed as the only legal method. Any firearm carried in plain sight is obviously not concealed.

    I get that, but my point is that the law CLEARLY states "belt holster"....I can see an officer reading that law, looking at a open carrier with another type of holster and making the arrest,,,,,,,,,

    Not saying that it would happen, but if you are gonna open carry, you really should have a defense for this other that "it's common sense".

    I just put this out there for discussion and thought......

    It can be those stupid, small, picky things that come back to bite you....


  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    542

    Post imported post

    greg36f wrote:
    I get that, but my point is that the law CLEARLY states "belt holster"....I can see an officer reading that law, looking at a open carrier with another type of holster and making the arrest,,,,,,,,,

    Not saying that it would happen, but if you are gonna open carry, you really should have a defense for this other that "it's common sense".

    I just put this out there for discussion and thought......

    It can be those stupid, small, picky things that come back to bite you....

    Your point is well taken. My shoulder holster is not what one could consider a belt holster. The fact that there is, to my knowledge, no case law further refining this section of the PC indicates to me that people have as of yet not been arrested for carrying drop-leg or with a shoulder holster with regards to 12025 (f). Which by extention might indicate that it is in fact wholly legal to carry in such a manner.

    On the other hand, there are many instances where activities which are de jure illegal are not enforced as such. This may be one where a court might decide that there is an imaginary "only" preceding the written words of 12025 (f).

    The argument that says "laws indicate what is prohibited, not what is legal" simplifies this, as there is no "only" we can take some measure of comfort in knowing that belt holsters are 100%, and other such methods of "open" are those that involve commen sense and a following of the spirit of the law.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    71

    Post imported post

    heliopolissolutions wrote:
    greg36f wrote:
    I get that, but my point is that the law CLEARLY states "belt holster"....I can see an officer reading that law, looking at a open carrier with another type of holster and making the arrest,,,,,,,,,

    Not saying that it would happen, but if you are gonna open carry, you really should have a defense for this other that "it's common sense".

    I just put this out there for discussion and thought......

    It can be those stupid, small, picky things that come back to bite you....

    Your point is well taken. My shoulder holster is not what one could consider a belt holster. The fact that there is, to my knowledge, no case law further refining this section of the PC indicates to me that people have as of yet not been arrested for carrying drop-leg or with a shoulder holster with regards to 12025 (f). Which by extention might indicate that it is in fact wholly legal to carry in such a manner.

    On the other hand, there are many instances where activities which are de jure illegal are not enforced as such. This may be one where a court might decide that there is an imaginary "only" preceding the written words of 12025 (f).

    The argument that says "laws indicate what is prohibited, not what is legal" simplifies this, as there is no "only" we can take some measure of comfort in knowing that belt holsters are 100%, and other such methods of "open" are those that involve commen sense and a following of the spirit of the law.
    Fair enough, I agree with you; but with growth of open carry and the heightened awareness of open carry, nothing should be overlooked. You need to walk that fine line between paranoia and awareness.

  6. #6
    Regular Member wewd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    664

    Post imported post

    (a) A person is guilty of carrying a concealed firearm when he or she does any of the following:
    (2) Carries concealed upon his or her person any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.
    12025(a)(2) is the operative paragraph of the law which you most likely know well as a law enforcement officer. Unless you meet the requirements of that paragraph, which is concealing on or about the person, then you are not violating the law. An openly carried firearm is not concealed on or about the person. I could sew a holster onto my hat and carry my gun that way and I would not be violating the law.

    You can't charge someone with 12025(f). It's just one example of what is not concealed. You could delete (f) from the law and it would change nothing.
    Do you want to enjoy liberty in your lifetime?

    Consider moving to New Hampshire as part of the Free State Project.

    "Live Free or Die"

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Escondido, California, USA
    Posts
    1,140

    Post imported post

    Open is open is OPEN

    General rule of thumb: If you can see it from three sides, it is open.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Mike Hunt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    San Pedro, CA, California, USA
    Posts
    293

    Post imported post

    greg36f wrote:
    California penal code section 12025 states in part

    (f) Firearms carried openly in belt holsters are not concealed
    within the meaning of this section,except in San Pedro.





    Fixed it for ya!!

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Escondido, California, USA
    Posts
    1,140

    Post imported post

    Mike Hunt wrote:
    greg36f wrote:
    *California penal code section 12025 states in part

    (f) Firearms carried openly in belt holsters are not concealed
    within the meaning of this section,*except in San Pedro.





    *
    Fixed it for ya!!
    Hahaha!

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    San Luis Obispo, California, USA
    Posts
    289

    Post imported post

    pullnshoot25 wrote:
    Mike Hunt wrote:
    greg36f wrote:
    California penal code section 12025 states in part

    (f) Firearms carried openly in belt holsters are not concealed
    within the meaning of this section,except in San Pedro.





    Fixed it for ya!!
    Hahaha!
    That was the main reason for my carrying that day in the Hogue Speed holster. The ONLY gun part covered is the trigger guard

  11. #11
    Regular Member Ranchero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    NORCO, California, USA
    Posts
    119

    Post imported post

    How about a shotgun? As long as it is on a slinger you are fine right?
    FREEDOM.

  12. #12
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Sons of Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Riverside, California, USA
    Posts
    638

    Post imported post

    wewd wrote:
    (a) A person is guilty of carrying a concealed firearm when he or she does any of the following:
    (2) Carries concealed upon his or her person any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.
    12025(a)(2) is the operative paragraph of the law which you most likely know well as a law enforcement officer. Unless you meet the requirements of that paragraph, which is concealing on or about the person, then you are not violating the law. An openly carried firearm is not concealed on or about the person. I could sew a holster onto my hat and carry my gun that way and I would not be violating the law.

    You can't charge someone with 12025(f). It's just one example of what is not concealed. You could delete (f) from the law and it would change nothing.
    +1
    Clinging to God & Guns: The Constitution Restoration Project

  13. #13
    Regular Member wewd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    664

    Post imported post

    Ranchero wrote:
    How about a shotgun? As long as it is on a slinger you are fine right?
    You can carry a shotgun under a coat if you like. CA's concealed carry law does not apply to long guns. See my previous post where I quote the law.
    Do you want to enjoy liberty in your lifetime?

    Consider moving to New Hampshire as part of the Free State Project.

    "Live Free or Die"

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    67

    Post imported post

    wewd wrote:
    (a) A person is guilty of carrying a concealed firearm when he or she does any of the following:
    (2) Carries concealed upon his or her person any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.
    12025(a)(2) is the operative paragraph of the law which you most likely know well as a law enforcement officer. Unless you meet the requirements of that paragraph, which is concealing on or about the person, then you are not violating the law. An openly carried firearm is not concealed on or about the person. I could sew a holster onto my hat and carry my gun that way and I would not be violating the law.

    You can't charge someone with 12025(f). It's just one example of what is not concealed. You could delete (f) from the law and it would change nothing.
    I do not take sides in this debate. I do not think that open carry is a good idea, but I WILL RESPECT YOUR RIGHT TO DO SO and I willdefend your right to do so. You havemore of a friend here that your probably believe.


    I simplylike to point out thought provoking stuff that we all should be aware of.

    Not everyone is aware of EVERY law out there and discussion and exposure helps to educate people..




  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    542

    Post imported post

    Please don't take this the wrong way, but as an intelligent member of this board who also happens to be a police officer, I am surprised that you haven't inquired about these things to your superiors who would have contact with the local DA.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    542

    Post imported post

    wewd wrote:
    (a) A person is guilty of carrying a concealed firearm when he or she does any of the following:
    (2) Carries concealed upon his or her person any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.
    12025(a)(2) is the operative paragraph of the law which you most likely know well as a law enforcement officer. Unless you meet the requirements of that paragraph, which is concealing on or about the person, then you are not violating the law. An openly carried firearm is not concealed on or about the person. I could sew a holster onto my hat and carry my gun that way and I would not be violating the law.

    You can't charge someone with 12025(f). It's just one example of what is not concealed. You could delete (f) from the law and it would change nothing.
    You are of course correct.

    However, 12031 (e) gives, through its wording, probably cause for arrest for violation of that section.

    "(e) In order to determine whether or not a firearm is loaded for
    the purpose of enforcing this section, peace officers are authorized
    to examine any firearm carried by anyone on his or her person or in a
    vehicle while in any public place or on any public street in an
    incorporated city or prohibited area of an unincorporated territory.
    Refusal to allow a peace officer to inspect a firearm pursuant to
    this section constitutes probable cause for arrest for violation of
    this section."


    So you understand how its possible for people to get the impression that each further subdivision, clarification and definition of the law could consititue a violation.

    Just sayin.

  17. #17
    Regular Member wewd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    664

    Post imported post

    heliopolissolutions, I don't understand what your point is in referencing 12031, that is a completely separate law from 12025. One governs carrying concealed handguns, the other loaded firearms (any firearm).



    greg36ff (or greg36f, multiple personality disorder?), I was not trying to be adversarial with that comment. I was merely pointing out where the whole open vs. concealed concept hinges on, which is section (a)(2). Since the law does not define what precisely constitutes concealed, except to say that openly carried on a belt holster is not concealed, it's basically up to the carrier and the officer to use their own common sense on the issue. Section (f) is not a requirement, but an example. If it said something like, "firearms must be carried openly on belt holsters" then that would be a requirement and we would all have to carry that way.

    In Arizona, you can open carry with your shirt hanging down over the gun, but as long as a piece of the holster is visible, it's still legal. California does not have any comparable definition. Some might say that partial concealment triggers the violation, but doesn't a holster partially conceal every gun? A guy was arrested in Michigan because the cop said his holster was covering part of the gun, therefore it was concealed. No matter that the cop saw him with the holstered gun from a hundred feet away and made the detainment.

    Concealment is really about intent. When you Terry-stop a suspected gangmember and shake him down for weapons and you find a little .380 in his pocket, it's obvious that the gun is concealed and his intent was to conceal it. But if you see a guy in line at Starbucks with a drop-leg rig on, it's obviously open carry and his intent was to open carry. Like pullnshoot said, open means open. If the casual observer can see the piece and identify it as a gun, it's probably safe to say that it's not concealed, unless it's printing through clothing or something to that effect.
    Do you want to enjoy liberty in your lifetime?

    Consider moving to New Hampshire as part of the Free State Project.

    "Live Free or Die"

  18. #18
    Regular Member Ranchero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    NORCO, California, USA
    Posts
    119

    Post imported post

    I am planing on bringing a shotgun to Redland next Thursday. Any advice? My first time to UOC by the way.
    FREEDOM.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    542

    Post imported post

    Wewd:

    "Violation" of 12025 (f) does not exist.

    Violation of 12031 (e) does exist.

    The idea thatportions of a PCthat qualify the operative phrase of a PC are seperate laws of their own come from the fact that indeed, an individual can be arrested for not acting in compliance with a subunit of a code.

    Like I said you are correct. The only way a person could be charged with 12025 violation..is with a 12025 violation. Although I am surprised and a little dissapointed that a LEO was unable or unwilling to understand that particular PC, I wouldn't be surprised if your average citizen failed to make that distinction--as the converse is sometimes true.

  20. #20
    Regular Member wewd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    664

    Post imported post

    Ranchero wrote:
    I am planing on bringing a shotgun to Redland next Thursday.** Any advice? My first time to UOC by the way.
    Don't. The open carry movement is not ready for long guns yet. We're having enough of a fight for our holstered handguns, we don't need to bring rifles and shotguns into the mix right now.

    If you don't have a handgun to carry, but want to, let us know and one might be available for you to borrow. And you don't absolutely have to carry to come to the meets. We're okay with anyone who shows up whether they carry or not.
    Do you want to enjoy liberty in your lifetime?

    Consider moving to New Hampshire as part of the Free State Project.

    "Live Free or Die"

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    San Diego County, CA, California, USA
    Posts
    1,402

    Post imported post

    Ranchero wrote:
    I am planing on bringing a shotgun to Redland next Thursday. Any advice? My first time to UOC by the way.
    Hopefully you mean shotgun microphone, in order to record any anti-UOC confrontations.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    71

    Post imported post

    :shock:heliopolissolutions wrote:
    Please don't take this the wrong way, but as an intelligent member of this board who also happens to be a police officer, I am surprised that you haven't inquired about these things to your superiors who would have contact with the local DA.
    I understand what you are saying, but I think that you have jumped to the conclusion that I have not made these inquiries and conducted my own research.

    Iwill admit that I am not as well informed as some of the long time members here, but I do think that I have a decent grasp of the law / situation.

    I also sometimes ask questions just to explore the edges of a point. I want to hear learned peoples opinions on that stuff. I like to reach outside my circle of friends / co-workers and see what other people have to say. I do not know any open carry people outside of this forum.

    I get pretty bored with, “Can I carry a gun when I pick up my kid at grade school” or “Hey guys, is open carry really legal?” That’s the easy stuff that requires no thought or discussion.

    Thank you all that have responded to my questions though…..and thank you for assuming thatI am intelligent.:shock:



  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Riverside County, California, USA
    Posts
    353

    Post imported post

    heliopolissolutions wrote:
    Wewd:

    "Violation" of 12025 (f) does not exist.

    Violation of 12031 (e) does exist.

    The idea thatportions of a PCthat qualify the operative phrase of a PC are seperate laws of their own come from the fact that indeed, an individual can be arrested for not acting in compliance with a subunit of a code.

    Like I said you are correct. The only way a person could be charged with 12025 violation..is with a 12025 violation. Although I am surprised and a little dissapointed that a LEO was unable or unwilling to understand that particular PC, I wouldn't be surprised if your average citizen failed to make that distinction--as the converse is sometimes true.
    12031(e) doesn't specify a crime so you can't violate it. 12031(e) provides authority to inspect the firearm or arrest (and then inspect) if the inspection is refused. The arrest is for failure to submit to the inspection, not for any crime committed or alleged. Hence one of the glaringly unconstitutional aspects of the law.

  24. #24
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    greg36f wrote:
    wewd wrote:
    It is merely an example of what is not concealed, and is not to be construed as the only legal method. Any firearm carried in plain sight is obviously not concealed.

    I get that, but my point is that the law CLEARLY states "belt holster"....I can see an officer reading that law, looking at a open carrier with another type of holster and making the arrest,,,,,,,,,

    Not saying that it would happen, but if you are gonna open carry, you really should have a defense for this other that "it's common sense".

    I just put this out there for discussion and thought......

    It can be those stupid, small, picky things that come back to bite you....
    This comes up about once a year on this forum, and it's not a merit-less concern.

    Just look at how many people (from LEOs to gun shop clerks) who believe the only possible legal way to transport a firearm is in a locked container with the ammo in a separate locked container. IMO, it appears these ideas come from over-applying the wording found in 12026 & 12031.

    However, the statistics don't lie. We would be extremely hard-pressed to find instances of people carrying in lawful manners being convicted of non-crimes. Such cases do exist, but they are the exception, not the rule.

    This still reinforces the point that each open carry participant needs to weigh that risk. As we see in Theseus' case, even the most obvious law can be misconstrued by some jerk in a robe. Be ready to pony up the cash to fight for your freedom... or be ready to lose your rights.
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Escondido, California, USA
    Posts
    1,140

    Post imported post

    Ranchero wrote:
    I am planing on bringing a shotgun to Redland next Thursday. Any advice? My first time to UOC by the way.
    NOT a good idea.

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
  •