Traveling to Tucson in October

[mzbk2l]

imported post

Decoligny wrote:

Just to get back to the main point. I initially asked what the law was.

I didn't ask how it is enforce, or how likely I was to get into trouble if I violated it and the cops don't care.

Great. The law is that a pistol worn in a belt holster is not considered concealed. The law makes no mention of whether you are sitting, standing, inside, outside, or in a car.

Therefore, I am in compliance with the law when I am wearing my pistol in my belt holster in my car. Your statement that I have admitted on a public forum to breaking the law is as incorrect as your apparent understanding of the law.

Subsection A, paragraph 1 of this section shall not apply to a weapon or weapons carried in a belt holster that is wholly or partially visible, or carried in a scabbard or case designed for carrying weapons that is wholly or partially visible or carried in luggage.

Perhaps you can show me where vehicles are mentioned in the statute?

 

[like_the_roman]

imported post

mzbk2l wrote:

Perhaps you can show me where vehicles are mentioned in the statute?

The statute has been overridden by case 'law.'

In State v. Adams, a weapon hidden from "ordinary observation" or "ordinary sight" is considered concealed. The manner in which a weapon is carried must put others on notice of its presence. The judge in this case even goes so far to say that concealed weapons need not be completely hidden or invisible to be considered concealed.

So, if you're carrying in a belt holster on your right side in your vehicle, and an officer approaches you from the left window on the driver's side, if he can't immediately tell you are armed, then you have a concealed weapon.

 

[protector84]

imported post

If I read that right, the weapon was NOT in a holster worn openly on the defendant's hip but simply between him and the door. I don't see how such decision would have anything to do with a driver or passenger wearing a gun openly on his/her hip while in the car. I think people are reading too much into this just like the bogus 1,000 foot school law.

 

[mzbk2l]

imported post

protector84 wrote:

If I read that right, the weapon was NOT in a holster worn openly on the defendant's hip but simply between him and the door. I don't see how such decision would have anything to do with a driver or passenger wearing a gun openly on his/her hip while in the car. I think people are reading too much into this just like the bogus 1,000 foot school law.

I agree with protector on this. In one case, the offenders were carrying in a fanny pack. In the other case, the weapon was jammed down between the seat and the door. Neither could reasonably be construed as being in a wholly or partially visible belt holster.

The most we've ever heard on these cases is that a cop "could" consider your weapon concealed if you're in a car. I'd like to see a single case of this actually happening. Until then, it's just as believable as the statement that a bad guy "could" come up and take a gun from an open carrier.

I completely support AZCDL, and I agree that this case law should be clarified in legislature. I just don't agree that every one of us should suddenly start acting as if getting in the car automatically equals concealed carry. It doesn't.