Esanders2008
Regular Member
My wife wanted to know if it is considered open carry if she has a pistol in her CLEAR purse. The gun is visible from the outside. I'm not sure the legality of it though.
My wife wanted to know if it is considered open carry if she has a pistol in her CLEAR purse. The gun is visible from the outside. I'm not sure the legality of it though.
I think it would depend very much on what else is in her purse. Which of course brings up the safety suggestion that nothing else be in her purse when the gun is in there. Which brings up the exception of a holster, to properly position the gun.
Sounds to me as if she "wants" to OC but has some hesitation/objection. Women seem to have fewer style "options" for OCing, starting with the lack of a sturdy belt most of the time.
You/your wife might be better off starting a new thread specifically asking the women OCers for advice/tips on how they do it.
stay safe.
You hit the nail on the head, Skid. I'm really proud of her though. We went for a drive down to the oceanfront last night around midnight, and she was OCing with a paddle holster. Except because of the belt, it didn't look to comfy. She also tends to wear a lot of longer tops, so doing the "tuck" wouldn't look exactly right. I'm sure we can figure something out.
You hit the nail on the head, Skid. I'm really proud of her though. We went for a drive down to the oceanfront last night around midnight, and she was OCing with a paddle holster. Except because of the belt, it didn't look to comfy. She also tends to wear a lot of longer tops, so doing the "tuck" wouldn't look exactly right. I'm sure we can figure something out.
My wife wears her tops not tucked also. She took my Star Super A to the store last night in a belt slide holster. No tuck, but I don't advise that, but it is not my place to tell her no, she is a adult.
On the matter of the original question...
As we have seen, you can get arrested for anything, whether it is justified or not.
I would suspect that carrying a gun in a clear purse would increase the odds of being arrested and charged with carrying a concealed handgun. Even if a person who takes the time to carefully examine the contents of your purse through the clear side ccould easily see the gun, a LEO could make the argument (which might very well be accepted by a judge) that he saw a purse, and not a gun... and then only later upon closer proximity/observation, did he see the gun.
Does it meet the legal definition? I don't know, but I do know I wouldn't want to pay the 5 figures in legal fees to find out. Since some number of LEOs seem to get a kick out of taking you for the ride, even if they can't win the case, why give such an LEO the opportunity to do just that?
TFred
Secondly, there is the issue of the having to keep the purse angled or held in a way to keep from muzzle sweeping someone.
That's one thing that I've been wondering about since this thread first popped up -- how long it might be before someone claims that they saw the gun in the purse pointed in their (general) direction and makes a claim of brandishing based on that.
The biggest proponents of Constitutional CC should be women as OC is often not an option due to women's fashions.
FRANCES MARIE SCHAAF
V.
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
October 5, 1979.
A reversalof defendant's conviction would in effect judicially sanction the carrying of aconcealed weapon by all persons, male and female, who own a shoulder bag or ahandbag. It would render useless the statute now requiring that permission befirst obtained from the court by anyone who desires to carry a concealedweapon.
Respect forand adherence to the rule of stare decisis does not require such a course ofaction on our part. While Sutherland can be distinguished from this case on thefacts, to the extent that there may be a conflict Sutherland is overruled.
What the heck is that "video" at the bottom of this thread? Looks like a Vegas showgirl at the gun range. I'm intrigued but afraid to click on it.