Iwb oc

You should not attempt iwb oc without cpl. While most likely legal, the penalty is too great if convicted.

Legally, I do not think a pistol can be half-concealed. It either is or it is not. iwb oc =gray area for NON-CPL holders only as a cop could make the argument that he feels it is concealed. If you have cpl...who cares? both forms of carry are perfectly legal.

Here is an exerpt from AG opinion number 3158. (dealing specifically with mcl750.227 i believe) the question was asked if a pistol would be considered concealed if part of it were covered.

:
"The statute does not mean or import that no part of the weapons should be concealed, but the offense is only committed when the weapon is so concealed that it is impossible for one approaching in view of the person carrying the weapon to see any part of it. All that the Legislature meant when it prohibited the carrying of concealed weapons was to compel persons to so wear them that others who might come in contact with them might see that they were armed and dangerous persons, who were to be avoided in consequence, for, if it should be required that no part of the weapon should be concealed, the statute would amount to an infringement of the constitutional right of citizens to have and bear arms, since it would be impossible for one to have and bear about his person a pistol or weapon of any kind without having some part of it concealed. (Stockdale v. State, 32 Ga. 225, 227)

Click to expand...

Impossible is a pretty high standard.

If an officer notices my iwb pistol and then asks for my "ccw" and id, i would feel no duty to disclose or to give him my papers. If the purpose of the stop is because he noticed my sidearm, then it was obviously not Impossible for him to see any part of it.

The problem is the LEO is a trained observer. SO the courts could rule that him noticing your gun does not count.

Nowhere in the opinion the op posted is there anything written about a trained LEO having a different set of rules.

scot623 said:

Nowhere in the opinion the op posted is there anything written about a trained LEO having a different set of rules.

Click to expand...

Nope..BUT when Thway had his IWB issue this was brought up by the prosecutor and I believe the judge agreed. However as it was settled by plea agreement we still don't know for sure.

It had to do with the idea that laws are written around the idea of "the reasonable" or "common man." It must undiscernable as a handgun to the common man. I believe the prosecutor and judge felt that a police officer, being a trained observer, does not qualify as the "common man."

Bronson

the point i was trying to make is that outside an exempted area with a cpl, iwb or owb makes no difference. No gray area at all if you choose to follow all of the CC rules while IWB.

also, if you wanted to push things and be a test case in order to answer the question "is owb oc the same as concealed carry" then treating it as oc (with cpl) would carry a much less severe penalty if found guilty. ie: not disclosing when stopped, or carrying into an exempted area.) Would be a simple civil infraction, when the same scenario would net you a felony if no cpl. I am not a lawyer, but the evidence seems to be much stronger to support the theory that iwb oc is not concealed since.....well....you can clearly see the pistol. By definition, if people can see it then it is not concealed.

As we saw in the melvindale case with szerdzi, how the pistol is carried doesn't acyually matter if the police officer is willing to testify that the pistol was concealed. Having video taken by a third party of your pistol being carried while having an interaction with an officer would be ideal but not always practical.