My question is what constituted an open carry ?

**Pa. Patriot** · January 22nd, 2008, 05:35 PM

Originally Posted by Rule10b5

Tempting, but not exactly. If I'm carrying a Desert Eagle under a black skin tight spandex shirt, from plain view you can easily tell that I'm carrying a gun -- but the gun is still concealed. And (were I with the DA's office) I'd happily prosecute on such facts...and win if the guy doesn't have a LTCF.

Gray area.

Disagree but see where ou are going.
A cell phone could look like a gun under a shirt to the right person.
I would contend that an outline is not the same as recognizable as a gun to the casual observer. It can only be assumed it is a gun.

**Rule10b5** · January 22nd, 2008, 05:58 PM

Originally Posted by Pa. Patriot

Gray area.

Disagree but see where ou are going.
A cell phone could look like a gun under a shirt to the right person.
I would contend that an outline is not the same as recognizable as a gun to the casual observer. It can only be assumed it is a gun.

I appreciate your sentiment, but you're unintentionally adopting a legal fallacy that a lot of folks fall into -- assuming that common sense doesn't get checked at the door of the courthouse.

First, "If a casual observer can recognize it as a gun, it would not meet the definition of concealed, therefore it is open" assumes language that isn't in the statute or any case law. That's a dangerous premise for any argument.

Second, people in Pa. are regularly convicted for carrying (without a license) based on a firearm that was seized based on a Terry stop that arose because the officer saw a "bulge" that looked like a firearm.

Follow the logic in this one: In order to have cause to engage in a Terry frisk, you need to have reasonable suspicion. If a bulge that looks like a weapon is enough to satisfy Terry (it is, trust me) and to then use the firearm (which would have been suppressed, if it were a bad Terry frisk) as evidence of carrying a concealed firearm then carrying under spandex isn't going to get you off the hook.

Take a look at Commonwealth v. Hall, 2007 PA Super 220, P2 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2007) for an idea of what I'm talking about.

Odd result, I know -- "It looked like a gun" is being used as the basis for prosecuting someone for carrying a concealed weapon.

**Pa. Patriot** · January 22nd, 2008, 06:09 PM

Points taken. I guess it depends a lot on your opinion of certain words.
I'll concede your experienced opinion is more correct.

If I remove the "If a casual observer can recognize it as a gun, it would not meet the definition of concealed, therefore it is open." from my post is it accurate to your understanding?

**Rule10b5** · January 22nd, 2008, 06:18 PM

Originally Posted by Pa. Patriot

Points taken. I guess it depends a lot on your opinion of certain words.
I'll concede your experienced opinion is more correct.

If I remove the "If a casual observer can recognize it as a gun, it would not meet the definition of concealed, therefore it is open." from my post is it accurate to your understanding?

You're asking me a heck of a hard question here -- seriously. The "law" is whatever the end result is in that particular case. That turns on what the judge thinks the law is, and how he presents the questions of fact to the jury within the context of his view of the law. It of course depends on what the jury thinks, and how the DA has spun things, and how whatever court reviews the results thinks. Personally, I think Hall is a poorly reasoned case,, and it doesn't even mention Hawkins, but it doesn't make it any less the law. Given, the facts are predicated on a vehicle case, but I still think it's crap.

Anyway...

You post says:

"As mentioned, no definition in PA code.

So, with that we look at the definition of "concealed".
No definition for that either in the code.
Common definition if concealed is hidden from plain view.

So if it doesn't meet that definition, than it is not concealed. "

I think, for the most part, your statement is a reasonable statement of a common sense take on the law. If you can convince the judge that a gun under a spandex shirt isn't "hidden" from plain view, you'll have the case dismissed. If you can't, he'll let it see a jury, and you'll have to see what they say. Again, don't assume that common sense and reason are going to come into it. It's enough of a close call that the judge is going to be able to generate a basis for whichever result he personally prefers. That's a scary place to be when you're sitting at the table closest to the jury.

EDIT to add: There was a nice article by Ayoob within the past year or two about open carry in NC. He advocated carrying (if you're going to OC and want to be low profile but still "open"): IWB, with a dark gun, in a dark holster, against a dark background, with a retention strap. Personally, I don't see a point in carrying openly if you're going to go the low profile route -- I'd rather carry in an OWB, with retention, and make it look like I don't give a damn if anyone sees me, because it makes it look legitimate and like I have nothing to hide.

**larrymeyer** · January 22nd, 2008, 06:33 PM

Boy a lot of really good discussion going on here

**Brown-Bear** · January 23rd, 2008, 09:20 AM

[
If a casual observer can recognize it as a gun, it would not meet the definition of concealed, therefore it is open.[/QUOTE]

That right there is what caused problems for us in Va. If you were wearing only a T-shirt for example and someone, anyone could tell that it was a firearm, it was no longer considered concealed. I think they called it "printing" or "imprinting" I can't remember which, sucks either way though.

BB.

**marinakorp** · January 24th, 2008, 12:03 PM

I AZ it was defined as

as long as a portion of the "holster" and a portion of the "grip" were visible, then it was considered to be an open carry.

When I lived there in 95 (or so) I had an IWB with a metal clip that hooken on to the belt. The Metal clip was considered to be part of the holster and since the grip stuck out a little over the waistband, it was visible.

Not sure hwat PA defines as open carry

**angus** · January 24th, 2008, 02:04 PM

A tablecloth conceals the table top, but everyone knows there's a table underneath the cloth. But it's still "concealed"-- though some might say that it is merely "covered."

Differing jurisdictional laws about "printing" can make it much more complicated-- and using the hypothetical reasonable observer deciding whether a covered object is a weapon or not has its own problems.