OC with IWB

[Hitman]

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....

Your not this guy are you ?

lol Just kidding. He's got an Ornage cap on his barrel, and a painted in mustache

We'll I can't say the same.

I'm still sportin a High Fade for the Marine Corps and I usualy wear my shirts tucked in with a belt.

 

[Louisiana Shooter]

I was once told by a police officer that if ANY part of the handgun was concealed from view, you "could" be arrested for illegal carrying of a firearm. Kind of a moot point because I prefer concealed carry anyhow. I like the element of surprise.... well used to before that tragic boating accident in Vermilion Bay!

There is some case law that indicates concealing part of one's holster inside of one's clothing can constitute illegal carrying of a weapon.

 

[Louisiana Shooter]

http://louisianacarry.org/oc

Do I give up my right to open carry if I get a concealed handgun permit?
NO! This is misinformation that has spread around the State for some time now. Supposedly, certain individuals working for the State Police at one time were informing concealed handgun instructors to inform those who applied for a permit that, if approved, they would no longer allowed to open carry. There is no basis for this in law, and can be ignored without breaking any law.

LRS 40:1382

§1382. Negligent carrying of a concealed handgun

A. Negligent carrying of a concealed handgun is the intentional or criminally negligent carrying by any person, whether or not authorized or licensed to carry or possess a concealed handgun, under the following circumstances:

(1) When it is foreseeable that the handgun may discharge, or when others are placed in reasonable apprehension that the handgun may discharge.

(2) When the handgun is being carried, brandished, or displayed under circumstances that create a reasonable apprehension on the part of members of the public or a law enforcement official that a crime is being committed or is about to be committed.

 

[gunz4me]

LRS 40:1382

§1382. Negligent carrying of a concealed handgun

A. Negligent carrying of a concealed handgun is the intentional or criminally negligent carrying by any person, whether or not authorized or licensed to carry or possess a concealed handgun, under the following circumstances:

(1) When it is foreseeable that the handgun may discharge, or when others are placed in reasonable apprehension that the handgun may discharge.

(2) When the handgun is being carried, brandished, or displayed under circumstances that create a reasonable apprehension on the part of members of the public or a law enforcement official that a crime is being committed or is about to be committed.

Argh, so this is the legislation that most police departments used to disallow the carrying of a 1911. That cocked and locked hammer makes John or Jane Q. Public think that the handgun may "discharge". Nevermind the fact that a cocked and locked 1911 is actually SAFER than most Glocks

 

[LouisianaCarry]

LRS 40:1382

§1382. Negligent carrying of a concealed handgun

A. Negligent carrying of a concealed handgun is the intentional or criminally negligent carrying by any person, whether or not authorized or licensed to carry or possess a concealed handgun, under the following circumstances:

(1) When it is foreseeable that the handgun may discharge, or when others are placed in reasonable apprehension that the handgun may discharge.

(2) When the handgun is being carried, brandished, or displayed under circumstances that create a reasonable apprehension on the part of members of the public or a law enforcement official that a crime is being committed or is about to be committed.

How is that pertinent to the peaceful open carry of a properly holstered weapon by a law abiding citizen?

 

[LouisianaCarry]

There is some case law that indicates concealing part of one's holster inside of one's clothing can constitute illegal carrying of a weapon.

I would be very interested in a cite on that one.

Not calling BS, honestly interested in the cite.

 

[XD-GEM]

<SNIP>I also have a CQC Serpa which is OWB. <SNIP>

I have a Serpa as well, but some folks on this board do not like that particular holster. However, in the latest edition of American Rifleman, there's a report that the Virginia Beach police force is switching ALL of its duty holsters to Serpas. Perhaps those who don't like it might need to re-examine it in light of this?

 

[Louisiana Shooter]

How is that pertinent to the peaceful open carry of a properly holstered weapon by a law abiding citizen?

This thread is about using an inside the waist band holster in conjuntion with open carry. If this were to cause someone to think that one carrying in such a manner was committing a crime, or about to commit a crime, an investigation may ensue.

Additionally, the use of an IWB holster could easily be considered evidence that one intends to conceal a weapon, because IWB holsters are designed for the specific purpose of concealing firearms. Using an IWB may not be consistent with peaceful open carry. Using one without a cover garment is inconsistent with effective concealed carry.

 

[Hitman]

I would be very interested in a cite on that one.

Not calling BS, honestly interested in the cite.

Same here, b/c the following contradicts that statement. IMO.

La. R.S. 14:95(A)(1) (1950), as amended, La. Acts 1968, No. 647, § 1.
Clearly, the present version of the statute differs from its predecessors by requiring intentional concealment. Thus, the old formula, which required that the weapon be carried in full open view, is obsolete. By making the offense of concealment a crime of specific intent, the legislature has abandoned the old rule that a partially hidden weapon is a concealed weapon in favor of a more realistic proscription that contemplates that a weapon, although not in "full, open view," is nonetheless not a "concealed" weapon if it is sufficiently exposed to reveal its identity. If the weapon is carried in a manner that reveals its identity, its carrier cannot be presumed to have intended to conceal it and, accordingly, is not in violation of the statute.

Nothing about a holster there.

My OP question is that AZ has a "holster specific" law. Does LA ?

 

[Hitman]

This thread is about using an inside the waist band holster in conjuntion with open carry. If this were to cause someone to think that one carrying in such a manner was committing a crime, or about to commit a crime, an investigation may ensue.

Additionally, the use of an IWB holster could easily be considered evidence that one intends to conceal a weapon, because IWB holsters are designed for the specific purpose of concealing firearms. Using an IWB may not be consistent with peaceful open carry. Using one without a cover garment is inconsistent with effective concealed carry.

May Be. But nothing in the Law constitutes that open carry is to be specifically and exclusively with an OWB ONLY holster.

Concealing as the LA law states it, is "COMPLETE CONCEALMENT".

IWB+Beneath shirt = Complete Concealment
Shirt tucked in+IWB outside the shirt (Like Photo in OP) = Weapon VISIBLE = Open Carry.

No ?

 

[Louisiana Shooter]

I have a Serpa as well, but some folks on this board do not like that particular holster. However, in the latest edition of American Rifleman, there's a report that the Virginia Beach police force is switching ALL of its duty holsters to Serpas. Perhaps those who don't like it might need to re-examine it in light of this?

There is nothing wrong with the Serpa design that cannot be overcome with a significant amount of holster specific training. They can present problems in civilian handgun courses because they have a release mechanism which is actuated by a movement unique to the Serpa. In a class where everyone has the same model holster, this issue is easily addressed.

 

[Louisiana Shooter]

May Be. But nothing in the Law constitutes that open carry is to be specifically and exclusively with an OWB ONLY holster.

Concealing as the LA law states it, is "COMPLETE CONCEALMENT".

IWB+Beneath shirt = Complete Concealment
Shirt tucked in+IWB outside the shirt (Like Photo in OP) = Weapon VISIBLE = Open Carry.

No ?

No. People has been convicted and sent to prison when they have been concealing part of a handgun in their clothing, their hand, or even in an entirely visible holster that wasn't easily recognized as a holster in the lighting conditions that existed at the time of the arrest.

Is it right? No! But our laws have been interpreted by our courts to prohibit even partial concealment of a handgun if the gun is no longer readily identified as a weapon.

 

[Hitman]

No. People has been convicted and sent to prison when they have been concealing part of a handgun in their clothing, their hand, or even in an entirely visible holster that wasn't easily recognized as a holster in the lighting conditions that existed at the time of the arrest.

Is it right? No! But our laws have been interpreted by our courts to prohibit even partial concealment of a handgun if the gun is no longer readily identified as a weapon.

What !?! Do you have anything but your word stating that ?

Cite ? Link ? Sourse ?

This is the 2nd time you've said something like that, with no cite to back it up.

Eitherway I'll get back with you guys later, taking my son fishing this afternoon.

 

[Louisiana Shooter]

What !?! Do you have anything but your word stating that ?

Cite ? Link ? Sourse ?

This is the 2nd time you've said something like that, with no cite to back it up.

Eitherway I'll get back with you guys later, taking my son fishing this afternoon.

Took ma a minute to look it up.

[Cite as State v. Bias, 37 La. Ann. 259 (1885).]


No. 9310.

The State of Louisiana vs. Lacy Bias.
A partial concealment of a dangerous weapon is a violation of the statute prohibiting carrying concealed weapons. It should be fully exposed.

A pistol half stuck in the pocket or about the clothes, even though a part of it may be visible, is carrying a concealed weapon within the meaning and intent of the statute.

The word 'concealed' has a statutory sense, contradistinguished from its ordinary meaning, and must be construed so as to give potential effect to the law.

APPEAL from the Tenth District Court, Parish of Red River. Hall, J.

M. J. Cunningham, Attorney General, and J. C. Pugh, District Attorney, for the State, Appellee.

L. B. Watkins for Defendant and Appellant.

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Manning, J. The defendant was indicted for and convicted of carrying a concealed weapon, and was sentenced to imprisonment for one day and to pay a fine of three hundred and five dollars. He relies for reversal upon what he conceives to be an erroneous charge to the jury as to what is concealment of a dangerous weapon. The bill states;--

That the proof was that the accused carried a pistol with the barrel and cylinder stuck inside the waistband of his pants in front and leaving the handle and guard exposed, the accused at the time wearing neither coat or vest.(p.260)

The judge charged thus;--

"I don't regard the Supreme Court as having given all of the law on the subject, but only so much as was necessary for the decision of the case then before them."

"I think the law was intended to prevent persons from carrying pistols or other dangerous weapons stuck in their clothes, even though a part of them may be exposed to view. And if you find that the defendant did carry a pistol stuck in his clothes or pockets, although a part may be exposed, you should find him guilty."

The case to which the judge alludes is State v. Smith, XI Ann. 633.

It was there said a partial concealment of the weapon which does not leave it in full open view is a violation of the statute, and the soundness of this ruling has never been questioned, however much juries have been influenced and trial-judges have misled them by definitions of the word 'concealed.'

In common parlance and even in philological import a thing concealed is a thing hidden, and therefore one might be correct in saying if it is not hidden or is visible, then it is not concealed. But the word must be taken in its statutory sense, that is, must be construed so as to give full and potential effect to the statute. The manifest object of the statute was to prevent the carrying of dangerous weapons--to stamp out a practice that has been and is fruitful of bloodshed, misery, and death--and yet so to prohibit the carrying as not to infringe the constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

The constitutional right is to bear arms openly, so that when one meets an armed man there can be no mistake about the fact that he is armed. When we see a man with musket to shoulder, or carbine slung on back, or pistol belted to his side, or such like, he is bearing arms in the constitutional sense. Of course there are other examples. These are but illustrations. There is no danger of any jury or court misinterpreting our statute prohibiting carrying concealed weapons, and confounding a case of lawful arms-bearing with one of carrying dangerous weapons concealed, unless verbal distinctions are pressed too far and they are misled by them. A pistol half stuck in a pocket or about the clothes so that it is not fully exposed, even though a part of it may be visible, is carrying a concealed weapon within the meaning and intent of the statute, and that is the language of the charge. We have nothing to do with the facts. The judge gave the jury good law. They applied it to the facts as seemed best to them.

Judgment affirmed.

Fluker modifies, yet does not overturn Bias with its added emphasis on intent:

In sum, the trial court erred in its application of the mechanistic standard that obtained under prior laws. The appropriate test to be applied in prosecutions for illegal carrying of weapons is whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case as disclosed by the evidence, the manner in which defendant carried the weapon evinced an intent to conceal its identity. Applying this interpretation of the statute to the facts of this case, we find no evidence of an intentional concealment of the weapon. Defendant wore the gun in a holster on his hip in open view. The gun was exposed, except for that portion in the holster. There was no attempt to conceal its identity. It was fully admitted by the arresting officers that the weapon was sufficiently exposed to be fully recognizable as a pistol. Hence, we find no evidence to substantiate this conviction. La. Code Crim. P. art. 778 (1966); see State v. Douglas, 278 So. 2d 485 (La. 1973).


Using an IWB holster rather plainly evinces an intent to conceal. I am not aware of a uniformed force anywhere in the state that routinely issues them for use with their uniforms.

 

[bayoutrigger]

[/QUOTE]

Concealed weapon? Firearm = NO!
Behind zipper = unknown? ask his wife.

 

[Louisiana Shooter]

222

 

[Hitman]

Fluker modifies, yet does not overturn Bias with its added emphasis on intent:

.

But...

La. R.S. 14:95(A)(1) (1950), as amended, La. Acts 1968, No. 647, § 1.
Clearly, the present version of the statute differs from its predecessors by requiring intentional concealment. Thus, the old formula, which required that the weapon be carried in full open view, is obsolete. By making the offense of concealment a crime of specific intent, the legislature has abandoned the old rule that a partially hidden weapon is a concealed weapon in favor of a more realistic proscription that contemplates that a weapon, although not in "full, open view," is nonetheless not a "concealed" weapon if it is sufficiently exposed to reveal its identity. If the weapon is carried in a manner that reveals its identity, its carrier cannot be presumed to have intended to conceal it and, accordingly, is not in violation of the statute.

So even though this guy in the picture is wearing an IWB holster. There is no mistake what is in the holster. So he is within the written law above.

The Weapon is visible, there is no doubt what it is = Not Concealed

 

[bayoutrigger]

I'm not sure what your point is. [/quote]


My point? You left it out of your above quote. In response to the question you posed in your first post bringing up the subject of whether IWB carry is considered legal "open carry" in Louisiana my response and point is:

(Beginning of point)"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." (end of point!)

 

[Louisiana Shooter]

But...




So even though this guy in the picture is wearing an IWB holster. There is no mistake what is in the holster. So he is within the written law above.

The Weapon is visible, there is no doubt what it is = Not Concealed

What you keep quoting is not part of LRS 14:95. You keep representing it as if it were.

 

[Louisiana Shooter]

I'm not sure what your point is.

The version of the law that keeps being referenced within this thread is not the law as written.

A firearm tucked into one's clothing with only the grip protruding is not easily recognizable to the general public as a weapon. Most holsters carried openly upon one's hip with a pistol grip protruding are easily recognizable as containing a weapon.