If your opponent can't see your weapon then your weapon is concealed.
"The policy underlying the prohibition against concealed weapons is based on the protection of those persons who may come into contact with a weapon bearer. If a weapon is not concealed, one may take notice of the weapon and its owner and govern oneself accordingly, but no such opportunity for cautious behavior or self-preservation exists for one encountering the bearer of a concealed weapon. In light of this policy, the question whether a particular weapon was concealed should be considered from the point of view of one approaching the location of the weapon, and the intent of the defendant as to concealment should not be considered, since a defendant's innocent intent does not make a concealed weapon any more visible." People v. Mitchell, 209 Cal. App. 4th 1364 - Cal: Court of Appeal, 4th Appellate Dist., 1st Div. (2012) at 1371.
Only someone like Bob Owens and his kind would say that a handgun carried in one's back pocket or tucked in the small of one's back is an example of "Open Carry." If one's would be opponent cannot see the weapon then the weapon is concealed regardless of whether or not people standing behind the bearer of the weapon can see it.
Lost on the proponents of concealed carry who claim that there is a Second Amendment right to carry a weapon concealed for the purpose of self-defense is that it was well established that the use of a concealed weapon to kill one's opponent was in virtually every case murder when the Second Amendment was enacted. For example, see Mason's Case (1756) Foster 132 cited in A Treatise on The Pleas of the Crown, Volume 1, Hawkins 1803, pgs 239-241 in which the concealment of a sword beneath the defendant's coat and a failure to give his opponent (his brother) an opportunity to retreat (he advanced on his brother as fast as he retreated) or defend himself from the sword once it was drawn was clear proof of willful murder. The defendant and his brother were armed with cudgels (short fighting sticks) with which they had earlier been fighting. One brother left and returned with a sword concealed beneath his coat, he feigned to resume the fight with his cudgel then dropped it and drew his hidden sword and killed his brother.
This was not an outlier. If one was engaged in an otherwise fair fight, even if one did not start the fight, and he produced a weapon either concealed on his person or concealed about him and used it to kill his opponent then he had committed murder whereas an otherwise fair fight in which the arms were openly carried which resulted in the death of one's opponent was, at worst, manslaughter (which was pardonable assuming a jury would even convict).
Shortly after the Second Amendment was enacted the mere carriage of a weapon concealed became a crime because then, as now, the world was full of people eager to use their "tactical/secret" advantage (a concealed weapon) upon others.
As proof, one need look no further than the comments made by the concealed carry proponents here ->
http://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2016/05/01/clueless-open-carrier-robbed-gun-arizona/
I sympathize with Richard Nascak of Florida Carry, Inc., (who is no fan of mine) in his unsuccessful attempts to reason with these folks but how does one reason with someone who brags about his own cowardice as if it were a virtue?
