• 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.

IWB holster OC?

1245A Defender

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

amzbrady wrote:
Machoduck wrote:
Ah, Brady: How can it be considered concealed if I, or a cop, can see it? As far as that goes, why would he discus pistol carry with you if he hadn't seen the thing or gotten a complaint from someone who had. The ordinary definition of "concealed" means that one can't see it!

MD
Reason I asked, is wondering if aleo could ask you for your cpl since some of it is tucked (concealed), or if you could just leave the cpl in the car since part of it is showing?I would think it could go either way, depending on the leo's mood.
even a poorly concealed pistol is legal...period!
the presence of a gun is NOT RAS of a crime..
the cop has no authority to demand you permission slip!
 

Machoduck

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

Well put, 1245.

Brady, that was what I was thinking that drove your question. Someone was approached by cops in Bellevue for just your question. The cop said his Lt told him that the lower part of the holster had to be visible, or some such nonsense. How could the law say anything about holsters per se without using the word holster? The story infuriated me to the point of analyzing RCW9.41.270 in a "white paper" (puffs out chest).

MD
 

END_THE_FED

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2010
Messages
925
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
imported post

Absent a Legislative definition codified in the R.C.W, or a judicial one ruled on by the state supreme court. I would be inclined to believe the word "Concealed" is defined by its common use meaning, and in court would probably be subject to the "reasonable person" standard.
 

GreatWhiteLlama

Regular Member
Joined
May 29, 2007
Messages
287
Location
Bothell, Washington, USA
imported post

Machoduck wrote:
Well put, 1245.

Brady, that was what I was thinking that drove your question. Someone was approached by cops in Bellevue for just your question. The cop said his Lt told him that the lower part of the holster had to be visible, or some such nonsense. How could the law say anything about holsters per se without using the word holster? The story infuriated me to the point of analyzing RCW9.41.270 in a "white paper" (puffs out chest).

MD
That was me. The term he used was "partially concealed" lol

Here's the post:
http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_topic.php?id=25883&forum_id=55&jump_to=430341#p430341
 

gogodawgs

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
5,669
Location
Federal Way, Washington, USA
imported post

NavyLT wrote:
I would think it would come down to this in court:

Lawyer, "Officer, how did you know the defendant was carrying a gun?"

Officer, "I saw it."

Lawyer, "You saw what?"

Officer, "The gun!"

Lawyer, "How did you know it was a gun?"

Officer, "Because I told you, I saw it!"

Lawyer, "Well then, if you could see it, and you knew it was a gun because you saw it, then it could not have been concealed, could it? If it was concealed you either would not have saw itor not known that it was a gun."
So in theory a CPL would never be needed. In Theory only.
 

geojohn

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2010
Messages
117
Location
Snohomish County, Washington, USA
imported post

NavyLT wrote:
...

Lawyer, "Well then, if you could see it, and you knew it was a gun because you saw it, then it could not have been concealed, could it? If it was concealed you either would not have saw itor not known that it was a gun."
Officer, "But I have special training, see."
 

Aaron1124

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
2,044
Location
Kent, Washington, USA
imported post

gogodawgs wrote:
NavyLT wrote:
I would think it would come down to this in court:

Lawyer, "Officer, how did you know the defendant was carrying a gun?"

Officer, "I saw it."

Lawyer, "You saw what?"

Officer, "The gun!"

Lawyer, "How did you know it was a gun?"

Officer, "Because I told you, I saw it!"

Lawyer, "Well then, if you could see it, and you knew it was a gun because you saw it, then it could not have been concealed, could it? If it was concealed you either would not have saw itor not known that it was a gun."
So in theory a CPL would never be needed. In Theory only.
Well I suppose yes and no. Unless you're being searched for something else, not related to your firearm. Does an officer have a right to pat you down without consent?
 

amzbrady

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

NavyLT wrote:
I would think it would come down to this in court:

Lawyer, "Officer, how did you know the defendant was carrying a gun?"

Officer, "I saw it."

Lawyer, "You saw what?"

Officer, "The gun!"

Lawyer, "How did you know it was a gun?"

Officer, "Because I told you, I saw it!"

Lawyer, "Well then, if you could see it, and you knew it was a gun because you saw it, then it could not have been concealed, could it? If it was concealed you either would not have saw itor not known that it was a gun."
Unless it is covered by a loose shirt and the wind blew it up, or if you reached up for something and it briefly became visable. Then you better be sure to have a cpl.
 

waterfowl woody

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2010
Messages
137
Location
Silvana, Washington, USA
imported post

so in Washington State the only people worried about "printing" are the people concealing without a CPL?

sounds like buttcrack :what:. if you have a CPL and you let it slip out ,your pistol,once and awhile people might point and maybedisapprove, but its not illegal. maybe they should requiremore laws on buttcrack at least towards dudes.lol

'
 

Aaron1124

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
2,044
Location
Kent, Washington, USA
imported post

I remember when I was a young teenager (about 13 or so), my friends and I were stopped and patted down walking home from a haunted house, at about 10:00 PM. We weren't doing anything suspicious, except walking home. My friend, however, grabbed a balloon that was tied to a railing as a part of the advertisement for the haunted house. The officer told him he can't take that property, and then proceeded to search all of us.
 

amzbrady

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

waterfowl woody wrote:
so in Washington State the only people worried about "printing" are the people concealing without a CPL?

sounds like buttcrack :what:. if you have a CPL and you let it slip out ,your pistol,once and awhile people might point and maybedisapprove, but its not illegal. maybe they should requiremore laws on buttcrack at least towards dudes.lol

'
+1, or even covered crack, no reason any of us guysshould ever know what kind of underwear another dude is wearing...
 

amzbrady

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

NavyLT wrote:
amzbrady wrote:
+1, or even covered crack, no reason any of us guysshould ever know what kind of underwear another dude is wearing...
Dang it... and I just bought a case of banana hammocks too! :celebrate

http://www.cafepress.com/OpenCarry.444338519
Wow, never saw the gear before, I like the coffee mug, but they sure did make the logo small.
 

Trigger Dr

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2007
Messages
2,760
Location
Wa, ,
imported post

amzbrady wrote:
waterfowl woody wrote:
so in Washington State the only people worried about "printing" are the people concealing without a CPL?

sounds like buttcrack :what:. if you have a CPL and you let it slip out ,your pistol,once and awhile people might point and maybedisapprove, but its not illegal. maybe they should requiremore laws on buttcrack at least towards dudes.lol

'
+1, or even covered crack, no reason any of us guysshould ever know what kind of underwear another dude is wearing...
They searched Rosie O'donnel and found 50# of crack
 

waterfowl woody

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2010
Messages
137
Location
Silvana, Washington, USA
imported post

NavyLT wrote:
waterfowl woody wrote:
so in Washington State the only people worried about "printing" are the people concealing without a CPL?
A little more specific statement would be the only people who need to be worried about printing are the people concealing without a CPL. There are people who do worry about it anyway! :uhoh:

If I do conceal my gun (and I do have a CPL), I only pull an untucked shirt or jacket over it. I only conceal it when I am going inside somewhere like a shopping mall.
was just wondering on the legal side of it. I love the "concealed" aspect and have followed that word highly for a decade, but it sure would be nice to be more relaxed, in a sence , if i were to become "Unconcealed" at certain times.
 

amzbrady

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

waterfowl woody wrote:
NavyLT wrote:
waterfowl woody wrote:
so in Washington State the only people worried about "printing" are the people concealing without a CPL?
A little more specific statement would be the only people who need to be worried about printing are the people concealing without a CPL. There are people who do worry about it anyway! :uhoh:

If I do conceal my gun (and I do have a CPL), I only pull an untucked shirt or jacket over it. I only conceal it when I am going inside somewhere like a shopping mall.
was just wondering on the legal side of it. I love the "concealed" aspect and have followed that word highly for a decade, but it sure would be nice to be more relaxed, in a sence , if i were to become "Unconcealed" at certain times.
Thats what I loved about finding the OCDO forum. I was always afraid to reach to high and have someone see my firearm, or unzip my jacket and worried that it might unviel my firearm. What a load off knowing now I can take my jacket off and not have to worry about the legality of an exposed firearm.
 

Crashbox

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2009
Messages
29
Location
Lynden, Washington, USA
imported post

In Black's Law Dictionary (Eighth Edition) it defines 'concealed weapon' as "A weapon that is carried by a person but that is not visible by ordinary observation". Just my opinion but if one is carrying per the photo shown a few posts down from the OP it would be OC; it is plainly visible to someone even like myself who has Coke-bottle glasses.

Also, in this state it does not matter when you are CC'ing if your firearm happens to print but in some other states, e.g., Texas, it would be a violation.

Just my two cents' worth.
 

killchain

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2009
Messages
788
Location
Richland, Washington, USA
imported post

1245A Defender wrote:
amzbrady wrote:
Machoduck wrote:
Ah, Brady: How can it be considered concealed if I, or a cop, can see it? As far as that goes, why would he discus pistol carry with you if he hadn't seen the thing or gotten a complaint from someone who had. The ordinary definition of "concealed" means that one can't see it!

MD
Reason I asked, is wondering if aleo could ask you for your cpl since some of it is tucked (concealed), or if you could just leave the cpl in the car since part of it is showing?I would think it could go either way, depending on the leo's mood.
even a poorly concealed pistol is legal...period!
the presence of a gun is NOT RAS of a crime..
the cop has no authority to demand you permission slip!
+1

The LEO that responded to my buddy's burglary asked what went down, and I told him about the return visit with the burglar (the burglar knows I have a .45.) The LEO just asked me if I had it on me, I said yes, and he said okay and kept writing in his notebook, taking our statements.

Just plugging "an LEO that respected the citizens" story. :)
 

amzbrady

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

1245A Defender wrote:
amzbrady wrote:
Machoduck wrote:
Ah, Brady: How can it be considered concealed if I, or a cop, can see it? As far as that goes, why would he discus pistol carry with you if he hadn't seen the thing or gotten a complaint from someone who had. The ordinary definition of "concealed" means that one can't see it!

MD
Reason I asked, is wondering if aleo could ask you for your cpl since some of it is tucked (concealed), or if you could just leave the cpl in the car since part of it is showing?I would think it could go either way, depending on the leo's mood.
even a poorly concealed pistol is legal...period!
the presence of a gun is NOT RAS of a crime..
the cop has no authority to demand you permission slip!

re-read this and was just wondering?

"even a poorly concealed pistol is legal" You do mean of course, only with a permit, right?

"the cop has no authority to demand you permission slip!" Even if you have an unzipped jacket on and the wind blows it open and the cop catches a glimps of your firearm before the jacket falls back in place concealing it, or if it is printing through a zipped jacket?
 

1245A Defender

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

YES! a very hard nosed reading of the 4th A, terry V ohio, florida V J.L., and others.
without RAS of a REAL crime, the cop does not have authority to demand ANYTHING!!!

I am not alone in this interpitation on our 4th A right against UNREASONABLE search and seizure!
 
Top