OC with IWB

[Hitman]

Yea, as in looking like John Wayne, or thinking more tactical.

Sorry if that's hard for you to grasp.

 

[Bayoupiper]

Yea, as in looking like John Wayne, or thinking more tactical.

Sorry if that's hard for you to grasp.

Are you a broken record or something?



.

 

[bayoutrigger]

Concealed Handgun―any handgun as defined in R.S. 40:1379.3(J)(1), which is carried on a person in such a manner as to hide or obscure the handgun from plain view.

Doesn't a holster hide or obscure part of a handgun? So if the above definition was meant by the legislature to include not only total concealment but also partial concealment in the waistband then open carry in a holster would also be illegal since a portion of the handgun is hidden or obscured by the holster. Obviously this is not the intent of the law. Should a judge or jury hold otherwise the law as currently written would be ambiguous and unconstitutional because such a double standard would mean that a gun obscured partially by a holster is not concealed but a gun partially concealed IWB is concealed.

Here is the lawyers classic legal argument.......If the legislature had intended for the current definition of a "concealed handgun" to include concealing any part or a specific portion of the handgun from plain view such as in the waistband the statute would have provided : "which is carried on a person in such a manner as to hide or obscure any portion of the handgun from plain view. This shall include concealment caused by a holster or similar device." Since the legislature did not specifically define a concealed handgun to include a partially concealed handgun a strong argument can be made that the current concealed handgun definition does not include a handgun that is partially concealed in the waistband.

Thus, I doubt that the law as currently written applies to a firearm that is partially hidden in the waistband. To read the law in any other light would mean that a gun in a holster in full view would be a concealed weapon.

 

[Hitman]

Oh, I grasp it just fine.

However, I don't think YOU "grasp" my thinking...

.

Don't be so sure.

Are you a broken record or something?

What's good for one derailer is good for all.

Seriously though, I've requested nicely to not bring this to a CC vs OC debate. So the remarks are uncalled for. Then again, you guys know that, yet you couldn't help yourselves but to just take a jab. Just had to do it. Says alot to me.

I just don't want this blown off course over someone else's ego.

Concealed Handgun―any handgun as defined in R.S. 40:1379.3(J)(1), which is carried on a person in such a manner as to hide or obscure the handgun from plain view.

Doesn't a holster conceal part of a handgun? So if the above definition was meant by the legislature to include not only total concealment but also partial concealment then open carry in a holster is illegal. To say a gun obscured partially by a holster is not concealed but a gun partially concealed IWB is concealed would make the current law ambiguous and unconstitutional.

Here is the lawyers classic legal argument.......If the legislature had intended for the definition of a concealed handgun to include concealing any part or a specific portion of the handgun the statute would have provided : "which is carried on a person in such a manner as to hide or obscure any portion of the handgun from plain view. This shall include concealment caused by a holster or similar device."

I'm not sure what your point is.

 

[Rahllin]

It ought to be on your certificate from the class, along with his instructor's number. If you can't get hold of him, call Sgt. Starnes at LSP CHP unit. He gets mighty upset with instructors that do this - it's an indicator that they may possibly not be teaching the other laws correctly either.

I don't have the certificate. I had to send it in with my CHP packet. I want to say I took the class March 3rd, 2007 at Precision, if I remember correctly.

 

[XD-GEM]

Concealed Handgun―any handgun as defined in R.S. 40:1379.3(J)(1), which is carried on a person in such a manner as to hide or obscure the handgun from plain view.

Doesn't a holster hide or obscure part of a handgun? So if the above definition was meant by the legislature to include not only total concealment but also partial concealment in the waistband then open carry in a holster would also be illegal since a portion of the handgun is hidden or obscured by the holster. Obviously this is not the intent of the law. Should a judge or jury hold otherwise the law as currently written would be ambiguous and unconstitutional because such a double standard would mean that a gun obscured partially by a holster is not concealed but a gun partially concealed IWB is concealed.

Here is the lawyers classic legal argument.......If the legislature had intended for the current definition of a "concealed handgun" to include concealing any part or a specific portion of the handgun from plain view such as in the waistband the statute would have provided : "which is carried on a person in such a manner as to hide or obscure any portion of the handgun from plain view. This shall include concealment caused by a holster or similar device." Since the legislature did not specifically define a concealed handgun to include a partially concealed handgun a strong argument can be made that the current concealed handgun definition does not include a handgun that is partially concealed in the waistband.

Thus, I doubt that the law as currently written applies to a firearm that is partially hidden in the waistband. To read the law in any other light would mean that a gun in a holster in full view would be a concealed weapon.

The Louisian Supreme Court essentially said this in State v. Fluker and State v. Farrand. It's logical that if you can tell something is a gun, then it is not concealed.

However, don't try that argument in Mississippi. Their Supreme Court ruled that even partial concealment violates Mississippi law; therefore, a holstered weapon, even in plain sight, WILL get you busted in Mississippi unles you have a valid concealed carry license recognized by Mississippi.

Of course, even the folks here on this board adamantly against OC make a valid point about an IWB being designed for CCand ,hence, a poor choice for OC. If you're going to OC, go ahead and get an OWB holster, preferably with a high level of weapon retention capability. IWB holsters generally provide poor retention capability, owing to the fact that their purpose is drawing from concealment - where you don't want anything else impeding your draw besides your cover garment.

 

[Bayoupiper]

I could not have said it better XD!


.

 

[Hitman]

And THAT is why you and your ilk just don't get it.

You talk about OUR ego... here's a news flash, bud. WE'RE not the ones posting photos of ourselves and our guns, asking, "Hey guys, do YOU do this cool stuff too????"

BTW, you're right... I COULDN'T "help myself" this time. Lately, I have been avoiding the OC ******** like the plague. But this one just hung there, fat and lazy; and ludicrous.

Carry on, gents.

.

First, Those pictures were internet photo's. None of which were me.
Second, I'm not sure how in the world you would put together that at any point in time I was bragging Cool stuff ? Where are you coming from with that? Making grand assumptions is a bad habit.

I asked a ligitimate question, and instead of answering it with intelligent dialog, you just made an inappropriate comment. Who's really trying to grab attention here?

You could have gave a ligitimate answer, or not answered at all.

Third, I'm not against CC. There indeed might be times were CC might be more convenient. I just don't prefer it. Yet I'm somehow able to contain myself from outwardly speaking against it. If that's your "ilk" as you say, so be it. I won't try to convince you otherwise in every topic I can. I would equally expect the same in return though. If you despise OC, so be it, I just requested you not derail my topic with your hate rants Smileee

Now I'm trying to be as retentive as I can here and stay on topic so here goes again.

I do however appreciate your respective tone. Normaly by this time in the disagreement, more harsh words have been said, and people are generaly PISSED lol ! So Thanks for that SIR's.

If you're going to OC, go ahead and get an OWB holster, preferably with a high level of weapon retention capability. IWB holsters generally provide poor retention capability, owing to the fact that their purpose is drawing from concealment - where you don't want anything else impeding your draw besides your cover garment.

I also have a CQC Serpa which is OWB. I don't use the IWB all the time, just depends on what i'm wearing. Like I said before though, I've had two LSP officers eye my piece in IWB, and not say a word. Just a friendly nod/how ya doing pass by.

Maybe on another topic I would like to further discuss the possible ramifacations for a CC permit holder being arrested for ANY type of Carry Violation involving "Accidental brandishing" etc.etc.

I think it would be very hard being that OC is indeed legal in LA, but stanger things have happen.

Thanks for the active discussion here guys

 

[Swampy]

If by "accidental brandishing" you mean shirt slide up. Happens to me all the time I'm riding my motorcycle and wind blows my shirt up. I have actually been aproached by a police officer once and a security gaurd another time because I was standing in line at the bank with my gun showing. Both times just a simple. "excuse me sir. Could you cover your gun. "

 

[Hitman]

"excuse me sir. Could you cover your gun. "

WoW, Really ? I'd say that was a nice encounter compared to most stories of bank rejections.

Most ask if your an LEO first

 

[Bayoupiper]

Ok, on subject.

Don't wear a IWB for OC.
It really does make you look ignorant!



.

 

[Hitman]

Ok, on subject.

Don't wear a IWB for OC.
It really does make you look ignorant!



.

Do you really think that though ?

It's like not openly displaying, yet not completely concealing either. Why is that so bad ?

 

[Bayoupiper]

Do you really think that though ?

It's like not openly displaying, yet not completely concealing either. Why is that so bad ?

Yes I really do.
From a defensive tactics instructor's point of view your retention is almost nil!
Nor can you draw as quickly as from a good OWB holster.




.

 

[Hitman]

Yes I really do.
From a defensive tactics instructor's point of view your retention is almost nil!
Nor can you draw as quickly as from a good OWB holster.




.

Well I actualy wear it in the front, so my retention is not close to being nil. Now if I carried it in the rear like seen in the picture, then yes the retention level would indeed be close to none if any.

Similar to this, but on the right side, and a few inches back towards my hip.

 

[LouisianaCarry]

Not even gonna touch that one.

 

[Bayoupiper]

.

 

[Hitman]

Not even gonna touch that one.

Great Micha, what's that supposed to mean

 

[LouisianaCarry]

Usually pics like that are ripe for a slew of jokes about shooting the boys, but I wasn't gonna be the first.

Didn't mean anything, really, that is to say. No worries.

 

[Hitman]

Usually pics like that are ripe for a slew of jokes about shooting the boys, but I wasn't gonna be the first.

Didn't mean anything, really, that is to say. No worries.

Oh Yea lol !

 

[Swampy]

I have actually had about 5 encounters with LEO's while carrying concealed (Or not so concealed and never has it been a problem...

Well once a statie came up to me at a gas station and told me that if I am gonna carry a gun on a bike he would prefer that I had some type of retention holster...

Thats the most confrontation I have had while carrying..
Lets just say... I dont look at all like a LEO... There is no chance they are confusing me with one....