Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 64

Thread: OC in my car...

  1. #1
    Regular Member yotetrapper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Northern Nevada
    Posts
    74

    OC in my car...

    With my 1911 holstered (OWB) on my right hip, could my seatbelt and/or bucket seat "conceal" my firearm?

  2. #2
    Regular Member The Big Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Waco, TX
    Posts
    1,950
    Quote Originally Posted by yotetrapper View Post
    With my 1911 holstered (OWB) on my right hip, could my seatbelt and/or bucket seat "conceal" my firearm?
    No. It can only be concealed by an article of clothing. Seatbelts and bucket seats don't count.

    TBG
    Life member GOA and NRA. Member of SAF, NAGR, TXGR and Cast Bullet Assoc.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Sparks, NV, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    471
    ^^^ What he said. If your seatbelt or seat count as concealed, so would the car door as I look at you from the outside.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    75
    Believe it or not, Matt Supnick, the CCW instructor fron New Frontier Armory, and the CCW instructor I took my class with, teaches his classes that OCing in a vehicle constitutes concealed carry. This is, in his words, because the door obscures you firearm from a potential officer.

  5. #5
    Regular Member The Big Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Waco, TX
    Posts
    1,950
    Quote Originally Posted by MPlannette View Post
    Believe it or not, Matt Supnick, the CCW instructor fron New Frontier Armory, and the CCW instructor I took my class with, teaches his classes that OCing in a vehicle constitutes concealed carry. This is, in his words, because the door obscures you firearm from a potential officer.
    Sounds like Matt needs some remedial training himself.

    TBG
    Life member GOA and NRA. Member of SAF, NAGR, TXGR and Cast Bullet Assoc.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Fallon, NV
    Posts
    577
    So does my body if my strong side is away from you.

    Sounds like some of the other mis-information that CCW instructors put out like:

    1."If you get a CCW, you can no longer Open Carry." (Apparently I lose my basic right when I get a permit)
    2. "Pulling your firearm out of the holster is considered brandishing." (I guess showing my weapon to a friend, or putting it in my safe is out of the question)
    3. "If you open carry and a bad guy sees you, you become the main/first target." (what happens if everybody in the place is OCing?)
    Last edited by FallonJeeper; 02-19-2012 at 01:45 AM.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Las Vegas NV, ,
    Posts
    1,763
    Quote Originally Posted by The Big Guy View Post
    Sounds like Matt needs some remedial training himself.

    TBG
    No kidding. This crap has got to stop.

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Quote Originally Posted by MPlannette View Post
    Believe it or not, Matt Supnick, the CCW instructor fron New Frontier Armory, and the CCW instructor I took my class with, teaches his classes that OCing in a vehicle constitutes concealed carry. This is, in his words, because the door obscures you firearm from a potential officer.
    I don't know Matt, nor what you were told. But in his defense, MAYBE this is what he MEANT to say:

    Firearms may be concealed in a vehicle or openly visible in a vehicle. No permit is required for either. Permits are only required if concealed on your person [by articles worn by the person.]

    Good cops know that a firearm concealed in the vehicle is potentially more dangerous than one concealed on a person. I had a rookie Trooper make me get out so he could disarm me. After his repeated attempts, and fearing he was going to accidentally shoot me with my own cocked-and-locked .45, I asked him to just remove the entire holster. But the point is that if I was a bad guy, I'd have left the gun on my hip and used the one in the console.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  9. #9
    Regular Member yotetrapper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Northern Nevada
    Posts
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    I had a rookie Trooper make me get out so he could disarm me.
    That brings me to another question.
    If I'm not being searched or do not consent to being searched can an officer legal remove or take my firearm?
    I always thought the answer to this was, no.
    Last edited by yotetrapper; 02-19-2012 at 04:13 PM.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Davis County, Utah
    Posts
    528
    Quote Originally Posted by yotetrapper View Post
    That brings me to another question.
    If I'm not bring searched or do not consent to being searched can an officer legal remove or take my firearm?
    I always thought the answer to this was, no.
    Legal or not, they'll do it in the name of "Officer Safety".

  11. #11
    Regular Member renoglock22's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Greensboro, NC
    Posts
    170
    I had this encounter the other day as I posted in the Where did you carry today thread. The officer talking to me was asking me questions as his partner went around and shined his light in the passenger side and informed the other officer that I was armed. He then backed away and pulled his gun and asked his partner if it was concealed. What a dumb question I think. Anyway, I do know that in my vehicle the seatbelt covers a good majority of my gun but it is still visible and discernible as a firearm. As much of a ****** as this officer was I am surprised I didn't get pulled out of the car and cuffed. That is my experience with the whole seatbelt covering my gun thing.

  12. #12
    Activist Member swinokur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Montgomery County, MD
    Posts
    984
    Google Terry vs. Ohio.

    During an investigatory stop, the officer may temporarily disarm you for the aforementioned "officer safety"

  13. #13
    Regular Member yotetrapper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Northern Nevada
    Posts
    74
    Thanks swinokur. That leads me to my next thread

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by swinokur View Post
    Google Terry vs. Ohio.

    During an investigatory stop, the officer may temporarily disarm you for the aforementioned "officer safety"
    But, not just because there is a firearm. Terry v Ohio outlines it clearly, and the bare fact of 'I see a firearm' does not meet the metric of Terry.


    As an example, some mom driving herself and her kids to Safeway to buy groceries gets stopped pulling into the parking lot for some minor traffic infraction. There is no element of "RAS" or "armed AND dangerous" available.

    Or, two men are observed sitting in a car in a parking lot of a closed business, and are seen to watch the owner close and lock the door. Subsequently, they get out and approach a side window of the business. If the observing LE sees a holstered firearm, the elements of "RAS" and "armed AND dangerous" are reasonably met.
    Last edited by wrightme; 02-20-2012 at 11:29 AM.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  15. #15
    Activist Member swinokur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Montgomery County, MD
    Posts
    984
    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    But, not just because there is a firearm. Terry v Ohio outlines it clearly, and the bare fact of 'I see a firearm' does not meet the metric of Terry.
    But a stop for other reasons does. ie, traffic or PC or RAS for another crime.

    However you don't need to speak or even consent to a search other than that allowed by Terry. (pat down for weapons)

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by swinokur View Post
    But a stop for other reasons does. ie, traffic or PC or RAS for another crime.

    However you don't need to speak or even consent to a search other than that allowed by Terry. (pat down for weapons)
    No. It doesn't. While the elements required do increase with the severity of infraction in the mind of LE, they are not automatic. And, in the case of a bare traffic stop, they aren't there.

    It doesn't take one element, it takes ALL elements mentioned.

    Here is directly from the "Held" of the case:
    Where a reasonably prudent officer is warranted in the circumstances of a given case in believing that his safety or that of others is endangered, he may make a reasonable search for weapons of the person believed by him to be armed and dangerous
    http://supreme.justia.com/cases/fede...92/1/case.html

    Terry v Ohio began with an investigatory stop, leading the observing LEO to believe a burglary was imminent. He believed that the men were likely about to commit a crime, meeting the "RAS" portion. Also, given the nature of the likely crime, the "armed and dangerous" was falrly met, though arguable.
    Last edited by wrightme; 02-20-2012 at 11:40 AM.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  17. #17
    Activist Member swinokur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Montgomery County, MD
    Posts
    984
    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    No. It doesn't. While the elements required do increase with the severity of infraction in the mind of LE, they are not automatic. And, in the case of a bare traffic stop, they aren't there.

    It doesn't take one element, it takes ALL elements mentioned.
    A traffic stop is an investigatory stop so if PC or RAS of another violation is present, the officer may disarm you, yes?

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by swinokur View Post
    A traffic stop is an investigatory stop so if PC or RAS of another violation is present, the officer may disarm you, yes?
    That is quite an 'open' statement. Can you clarify as to what you feel would indicate such during a traffic stop?


    To flesh out the example, LE pulls over a citizen for a 'rolling stop' in a city in Nevada, other than NLV. Lets stipulate it is in Reno, where there is no regulation regarding the open carry of firearms at all. What "PC or RAS" are you expecting would be present to trigger the 'RAS' and 'armed and dangerous' metrics of Terry v Ohio?


    In other words, we can 'what if' it to death, but an LE does not have RAS, or 'armed and dangerous' from simply observing a sidearm upon the waist of a person during a stop for a traffic violation.
    Last edited by wrightme; 02-20-2012 at 11:43 AM.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  19. #19
    Activist Member swinokur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Montgomery County, MD
    Posts
    984
    How about "subject was acting in a strange fashion" or "I smelled marijuana"

    Not hard to imagine as LE does it all the time. The officer doesn't need to see the weapon, just RAS of a potential crime about to be committed or in progress. The point of the Terry stop is to search for weapons during the investigatory stop yes?
    Last edited by swinokur; 02-20-2012 at 11:58 AM.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by swinokur View Post
    How about "subject was acting in a strange fashion" or "I smelled marijuana"

    Not hard to imagine as LE does it all the time. The officer doesn't need to see the weapon, just RAS of a potential crime about to be committed or in progress. The point of the Terry stop is to search for weapons during the investigatory stop yes?
    NO. The point of a Terry stop is that it IS an investigatory stop. The subsequent ruling was as to when a search for weapons was reasonable by LE.

    The bare fact that an investigatory stop is in progress does not fulfill the elements of Terry.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  21. #21
    Activist Member swinokur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Montgomery County, MD
    Posts
    984
    I don't think case law would support that but IANAL either.

    But the 2 elements I listed will would they not?
    Last edited by swinokur; 02-20-2012 at 12:09 PM.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by swinokur View Post
    I don't think case law would support that but IANAL either.
    What is it that you feel case law would not support? It would help if you would quote the specific bits that you are responding to.
    Quote Originally Posted by swinokur
    But the 2 elements I listed will would they not?
    Huh? It is all up in the air. What is it you are asking?



    The metrics are:

    "RAS that a crime has been, or is about to be committed by the subject"
    "reasonable belief that the subject is both 'armed' AND 'dangerous.'"

    So far, what you have listed does not fill those metrics. But, some LE may disagree.

    Like I said, we can 'what if' it to death, and frankly, get no further than we currently are.
    Last edited by wrightme; 02-20-2012 at 12:16 PM.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  23. #23
    Activist Member swinokur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Montgomery County, MD
    Posts
    984
    I agree but what I meant was that while I agree a traffic stop is and of itself not reason for a pat down or stop and frisk the other 2 things I listed would be.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by swinokur View Post
    I agree but what I meant was that while I agree a traffic stop is and of itself not reason for a pat down or stop and frisk the other 2 things I listed would be.
    How do you feel 'the other 2 things' fulfill the "RAS" and the 'armed and dangerous' metrics?

    Specifically, 'subject was acting in a strange fashion' or 'I smelled marijuana' do not seem to fulfill either "RAS" or "armed and dangerous."
    Last edited by wrightme; 02-20-2012 at 12:40 PM.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  25. #25
    Activist Member swinokur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Montgomery County, MD
    Posts
    984
    Whre in Terry does the Metric has to be armed and dangerous present itself? It says reasonable suspicion of being armed and dangerous. I thought RAS of a crime was enough. I thought the reason for the pat down is to find weapons even if none are eveident.

    RAS of the the crime situations metric:

    if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous."


    That's pretty easy for LE to testify to a Judge whether it is a fact or not.
    Last edited by swinokur; 02-20-2012 at 12:49 PM.

Page 1 of 3 123 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
  •