OC with IWB

[Louisiana Shooter]

LOL, if I was running LA Carry.org for profit (which of course I am not) I would be a damn stupid businessman. That site and the things I do for it lose me at least a grand a year.

The last time we spoke, you hadn't yet incorporated as a non-profit. If it's a money losing contest, I bet I can win!

The for profit or not designation is a legal one, and, as such, is not based on outcomes. There are tax and liability advantages to incorporation, especially if you are losing money.

 

[LouisianaCarry]

Ah, yes, if you are referring to my legal staus, that is correct.

 

[Louisiana Shooter]

It's much more deeper than that. I also don't view OC as championing






C'mon Shooter, there you go again.

The last cite you stated was from the late 1800's. What's the last law suit you KNOW of where what you said above happen and the citizen was found guilty ?

I hear about it a whole lot, from lot's of forums. Yet that's all that ever happens. Hear, Hear, Hear. Never SEE

The Marine Corps taught me to,
believe NONE of what I hear, HALF of what I see, and only believe it 15 minutes after it happen.

I'm not trying to call you out disrespectfully,
I'm just not one for surping down the koolaid.

You clearly did not read all of my earlier post. I explained how Fluker modified Bias by recognizing intent as vital to culpability.

As to recent cases, a guy here in Lake Charles named Brandon Davidson has been convicted twice. The first conviction occured when he was 18 and too young to get a permt. The second occured earlier this month.

Cases like his rarely get appealed because the fine is usually $100. Unless a case is heard by an appellate court, it is not published in the legal journals. It doesn't matter how old case law is. What matters is whether or not it has been reversed. Bias has not been reversed, only modified by Fluker with respect to the element of intent. Take Marbury v. Madison for example; it has been the prevailing caselaw with respect to judicial review for over 200 years.

You may not be drinking the kool-aid, but you seem to be selling it. Why would you endorse behavior that gets dozens of people arrested every year, even if the good judges let them go? Why do you seem intent on creating legal bills and hassles for honest people? I have personally been arrested for supposedly illegally carrying a weapon. I had to make bail, hire a lawyer, and miss work for several court dates. Fortunately, I got a judge who interpreted the law in my favor.

I am not saying that the law is cut and dry and that one will always be convicted in a partial concealment situation. I am saying that because one could be convicted, it is not wise to take the chance unless it is absolutely necessary.

 

[XD-GEM]

I wish that it were as simple as that, I really do. The fact remains that judges convict people for partially concealing firearms or concealing firearms some of the time. If the officer explains that he is trained to spot concealed weapons or that he saw the firearm when the wind blew the defendants shirt up, the defendant may well end up convicted.

<SNIP>

And then reversed on appeal.

Intent is the key according to the LSC. If there's a cover garment, one might get a conviction that stands up.

There's also the "reasonable" question that must be satisfied as to the officer's or citizen's "reasonableness" in believing a crime was being committed or about to be committed. The LSC has already ruled that it is NOT reasonable to assume that simply from observing someone carrying a gun (State v Ferrand); and the previously mentioned State v Fluker is clear that simply having a gun in a holster does NOT violate the concealed carry laws.

 

[Hitman]

As to recent cases, a guy here in Lake Charles named Brandon Davidson has been convicted twice. The first conviction occured when he was 18 and too young to get a permt. The second occured earlier this month.

Cases like his rarely get appealed because the fine is usually $100. Unless a case is heard by an appellate court, it is not published in the legal journals. It doesn't matter how old case law is. What matters is whether or not it has been reversed. Bias has not been reversed, only modified by Fluker with respect to the element of intent. Take Marbury v. Madison for example; it has been the prevailing caselaw with respect to judicial review for over 200 years.

You may not be drinking the kool-aid, but you seem to be selling it. Why would you endorse behavior that gets dozens of people arrested every year, even if the good judges let them go? Why do you seem intent on creating legal bills and hassles for honest people? I have personally been arrested for supposedly illegally carrying a weapon. I had to make bail, hire a lawyer, and miss work for several court dates. Fortunately, I got a judge who interpreted the law in my favor.

I am not saying that the law is cut and dry and that one will always be convicted in a partial concealment situation. I am saying that because one could be convicted, it is not wise to take the chance unless it is absolutely necessary.

I'm not promoting it, I'm obviously tyring to just get to the bottom of it.

Lake Charles ? I'm there every weekend, You live there ?

My Grandfather-in-law just retired from Cheif of Warrants there, I got an Aunt in Forensic Evidence, and an Uncle in Swat. I'll see if they can pull me something on this Brandon Davidson.

And then reversed on appeal.

Intent is the key according to the LSC. If there's a cover garment, one might get a conviction that stands up.

There's also the "reasonable" question that must be satisfied as to the officer's or citizen's "reasonableness" in believing a crime was being committed or about to be committed. The LSC has already ruled that it is NOT reasonable to assume that simply from observing someone carrying a gun (State v Ferrand); and the previously mentioned State v Fluker is clear that simply having a gun in a holster does NOT violate the concealed carry laws.

 

[Louisiana Shooter]

And then reversed on appeal.

Intent is the key according to the LSC. If there's a cover garment, one might get a conviction that stands up.

There's also the "reasonable" question that must be satisfied as to the officer's or citizen's "reasonableness" in believing a crime was being committed or about to be committed. The LSC has already ruled that it is NOT reasonable to assume that simply from observing someone carrying a gun (State v Ferrand); and the previously mentioned State v Fluker is clear that simply having a gun in a holster does NOT violate the concealed carry laws.

But the case law clearly supports convictions when cover garments intentionally conceal portions of the gun and/or the holster. With an inside the waist band holster, what are the pants if not a cover garment?


Without a shirt, one can be reasonably apprehensive because another person appears to be trying to hide their gun. The apparent attempt to conceal begs the question, "what for?".

I advise folks to carry either totally out in the open, or completely concealed. Trying to split the difference can lead to hassles that most people just do not need, including the loss of one's CHL. Case law specific to the negligent carrying statute has yet to develop. The fact that the legislature removed the element of intent makes me nervous about how the courts will interpret things.

 

[Hitman]

I advise folks to carry either totally out in the open, or completely concealed. Trying to split the difference can lead to hassles that most people just do not need,

I'll have to agree to that

 

[Louisiana Shooter]

I'm not promoting it, I'm obviously tyring to just get to the bottom of it.

Lake Charles ? I'm there every weekend, You live there ?

My Grandfather-in-law just retired from Cheif of Warrants there, I got an Aunt in Forensic Evidence, and an Uncle in Swat. I'll see if they can pull me something on this Brandon Davidson.

If by "getting to the bottom of it" you mean that you want a well defined standard, a clear line of demarcation, of what is concealed and what isn't, then you are going to be disappointed.

Open carry doesn't always end exactly where concealed carry begins, especially in three dimensional dynamic environments. Some things depend upon people's reasonable perceptions, and reasonable perceptions may differ depending upon people's life experiences and perspectives.

Throw politicians into the mix and all bets are off. I've been trying to sort this stuff out for 27 years. We have made some huge improvements, but we still have quite a bit of work to do.

 

[Hitman]

Open carry doesn't always end exactly where concealed carry begins,

Yea I'm learning that real quick. And your right, I'm disappointed.

I guess this is one of the things that drives you guys to get CC permits. It seems having one might indeed allow CC to mix with OC without having to worry about either one leading to arrest. Right ?

 

[Nolacopusmc]

If by "getting to the bottom of it" you mean that you want a well defined standard, a clear line of demarcation, of what is concealed and what isn't, then you are going to be disappointed.

Open carry doesn't always end exactly where concealed carry begins, especially in three dimensional dynamic environments. Some things depend upon people's reasonable perceptions, and reasonable perceptions may differ depending upon people's life experiences and perspectives.

Throw politicians into the mix and all bets are off. I've been trying to sort this stuff out for 27 years. We have made some huge improvements, but we still have quite a bit of work to do.

Very well put.

 

[Louisiana Shooter]

Yea I'm learning that real quick. And your right, I'm disappointed.

I guess this is one of the things that drives you guys to get CC permits. It seems having one might indeed allow CC to mix with OC without having to worry about either one leading to arrest. Right ?

That's what we're hoping for.

I've learned to go through life looking for opportunities instead of guarantees.

You must have some pretty cool credentials if you can routinely carry on base. MP? Something more interesting?

I had a couple of coasties in a class a few months back. I could not belive that the Department of Homeland security wouldn't let them carry on their badges. Those guys were stone cold shooters. I mean able to shoot balloons whipping around in the wind 15 yards away while they were moving briskly toward cover.

 

[Hitman]

That's what we're hoping for.

I've learned to go through life looking for opportunities instead of guarantees.

You must have some pretty cool credentials if you can routinely carry on base. MP? Something more interesting?

I had a couple of coasties in a class a few months back. I could not belive that the Department of Homeland security wouldn't let them carry on their badges. Those guys were stone cold shooters. I mean able to shoot balloons whipping around in the wind 15 yards away while they were moving briskly toward cover.

Oh I don't carry on base. I shoot on base.

Weapons bought to the public ranges have to be unloaded and seperate while on base. Ammo in the glove box, firearms behind the seat.

 

[posse comatosis]

I personally think that the prohibition of concealed weapons is so bogus

That IS the root of the problem.

Constitutionally, it breaks down very simply like this: The right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right of the people, and springs from the natural law right to self defense. Fundamental rights can only be infringed upon when they conflict with other rights.

Name me one that compels a restriction be placed on concealed carry, exclusive of the restrictions which may apply to open carry guns such as in courthouses, schools, mentally deficient persons, etc. which will obviously apply to concealed carry also.

The dicta of the SCOTUS on restrictions is just so much garbage by Scalia that will have to be overcome in the future. Some of that dicta has already last week been used in a lower court decision. Getting past it won't be easy and it won't be cheap. Scalia really screwed the pooch about restrictions in his opinion.

The Louisiana Constitution as written is clearly ill written regarding this matter and needs changing.

 

[Gus McCrae]

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!

So, no holsters? Hang a 1911 from the lanyard loop?

 

[gunz4me]

So, no holsters? Hang a 1911 from the lanyard loop?

Even worse since the boating accident. Now I have to rely on the fact that the Government will protect me from bad guys because I am as defenseless as sheep to the wolf I am kind of skeptical about government protection though because when precious seconds count, they are minutes to hours away

But getting back on topic... Do you want to take your chances with some small town police departments who feel that the law is what they say it is until told otherwise? I bet there are still some townships and villages in Louisiana where you will get picked up for open carrying your weapon in an OWB holster because the gun itself is partially concealed

 

[Bayoupiper]

By now all of you should know that my problem is not with OC, per se, but with the lack of common sense displayed in both where you chose to fight this battle, and the blatant lack of retention training many of you show in both your actions and words.

Now, having said that, I had breakfast this morning with officers from three different agencies.
None of the three knew it was legal to OC in Louisiana!
So I gotta concede the point that there are a lot of ignorant cops out there.
Apparantly more than I thought.


.

 

[XD-GEM]

Yea I'm learning that real quick. And your right, I'm disappointed.

I guess this is one of the things that drives you guys to get CC permits. It seems having one might indeed allow CC to mix with OC without having to worry about either one leading to arrest. Right ?

No, you can be arrested for almost anything, even if the arrest is bogus. It's what happens after the arrest that really matters. If the arrest is flagrantly wrong enough, you might even win a motorcycle.

By now all of you should know that my problem is not with OC, per se, but with the lack of common sense displayed in both where you chose to fight this battle, and the blatant lack of retention training many of you show in both your actions and words.

Now, having said that, I had breakfast this morning with officers from three different agencies.
None of the three knew it was legal to OC in Louisiana!
So I gotta concede the point that there are a lot of ignorant cops out there.
Apparantly more than I thought.


.

Sadly, too true.

 

[Hitman]

Now, having said that, I had breakfast this morning with officers from three different agencies.
None of the three knew it was legal to OC in Louisiana!
So I gotta concede the point that there are a lot of ignorant cops out there.
Apparantly more than I thought.


.

I've probably probed 15 or so LEO's in the past 12 months about OC. They all gave a similar answer.

"You can't do that, this ain't the wild west son". Har, Har, Har."

After that most ridiculous conceded laugh that most of them give, I usualy can't even stomach the process of trying to even educate those idiot suppressors of freedom.

No, you can be arrested for almost anything, even if the arrest is bogus. It's what happens after the arrest that really matters. If the arrest is flagrantly wrong enough, you might even win a motorcycle.



Sadly, too true.

Right, I meant to say legitimate arrest, and yes tis very sad indeed when you realize just how far down the road of 2A redemption we HAVEN'T Traveled yet.