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.
