IWB holster & OC

[Thanis]

I have been told that a few Michiganders have run into trouble using an IWB (in the waste band holster) as an OC (open-carry). In addition, I was told this included CPL holders.

LE (law enforcement) has stated that a IWB is not OC, and I as told the one or two times this has come up on charges the gunowners plead (per advise of their lawyer) to a lesser charge.

I have also been told LE has charged CPL holders who OC using IWB holsters because they failed to follow guidlines of the CPL (requires the concealment of the pistol).

Thoughts?

[Done Deal]

I have been told that a few Michiganders have run into trouble using an IWB (in the waste band holster) as an OC (open-carry). In addition, I was told this included CPL holders.

LE (law enforcement) has stated that a IWB is not OC, and I as told the one or two times this has come up on charges the gunowners plead (per advise of their lawyer) to a lesser charge.

I have also been told LE has charged CPL holders who OC using IWB holsters because they failed to follow guidlines of the CPL (requires the concealment of the pistol).

Thoughts?

Thoughts?


For starters, my grandpappy gave this advice "don't believe anything ya hear and only half of what you see".


If you don't want to follow that advice, consider if you will that lots of folks get bum scoop from sources that might appear credible. Even if they are going to jail with you and promise to pay your attorney....do you really want to risk the hassle?

[dougwg]

What you may have heard is messed up.

Non-CPL holders should never carry IWB because some feel it's partially concealed and the person can be charged with CCW.

CPL holders can CC and OC anyway they like in general. Where this changes is dealing with CEZ's and a couple other things.

To Clarify... if you have a CPL you may carry IWB without anything covering it.

NOTHING in the CPL "guidlines" (whatever that is, I think you mean LAW) require the CPL holder to conceal.

BTW: These are facts, not opinions or thoughts.

[Thanis]

...NOTHING in the CPL...require the CPL holder to conceal...

Under "authorized conduct." From 28.425c "Carry a pistol concealed on or about his or her person...Carry a pistol in a vehicle, whether concealed or not concealed..."

Only authorized conduct of the CPL is conceal pistol. It does not speak to other forms of carry. So if you are not properly concealing a pistol, you would be in violation of your CPL. Thus IWB as an OC for a CPL holder concern.

[PhotoTom]

Under "authorized conduct." From 28.425c "Carry a pistol concealed on or about his or her person...Carry a pistol in a vehicle, whether concealed or not concealed..."

Only authorized conduct of the CPL is conceal pistol. It does not speak to other forms of carry. So if you are not properly concealing a pistol, you would be in violation of your CPL. Thus IWB as an OC for a CPL holder concern.

There are no laws specifically prohibiting open carry in general. However, there ARE laws prohibiting concealed carry. A CPL grants exception to those prohibitive laws and allows the licensee to carry concealed where otherwise prohibited by law. NOWHERE do the CPL statutes REQUIRE one to conceal their pistol. Any challenge to this would have to be established in court...and, to my knowledge, there is no case law (high court decisions) on topic to reference.

[Thanis]

...NOWHERE do the CPL statutes REQUIRE one to conceal their pistol...

Overall, when I read the relevant laws, I agree with you. I'm only poining out what I have been told, and the portions of the law that are support an opinion. In addition, I have been told, a CPL holder did plea to a lesser charge when LE stopped him when he was OC an IWB holster. I've come to this site to get clarification, as on both side all people can offer me is do you have any proof.

28.428 Revocation of licenses; grounds; hearing; suspension; order; notice: "The concealed weapon licensing board that issued a license to an individual to carry a concealed pistol may revoke that license if the board determines that the individual committed any violation of this act..."

Since under "authorized conduct." From 28.425c "Carry a pistol concealed on or about his or her person...Carry a pistol in a vehicle, whether concealed or not concealed..."

Only authorized conduct of the CPL is conceal pistol. If you fail to conceal the pistol, you would be in violation of your CPL. Thus IWB as an OC for a CPL holder concern.

For the record, I'm not stating it is against the law for a CPL holder to OC with a IWB holster, I'm only stating, it is not clear, from my point a view, and in light of what I've been told by three LEO (Waterford, West Bloomfield, and Detroit) and my CCW intructor. I hear a lot of different opinions online, but get a different story face to face.

I'm working on getting something from the MSP in writting.

[Leader]

While the CPL does authorize concealing a handgun, nothing in any Michigan law prohibits the open carry of one except in specific places
For written proof that open carry is legal, see http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum30/13328.html.

In order for OC with a CPL to be illegal, some law must PROHIBIT it.
Just because I have a drivers license doesn't mean I can no longer walk anyplace.

[Done Deal]

Overall, when I read the relevant laws, I agree with you. I'm only poining out what I have been told, and the portions of the law that are support an opinion. In addition, I have been told, a CPL holder did plea to a lesser charge when LE stopped him when he was OC an IWB holster. I've come to this site to get clarification, as on both side all people can offer me is do you have any proof.


Says who?

Only authorized conduct of the CPL is conceal pistol. If you fail to conceal the pistol, you would be in violation of your CPL. Thus IWB as an OC for a CPL holder concern.

You are mistaken on both counts

For the record, I'm not stating it is against the law for a CPL holder to OC with a IWB holster, I'm only stating, it is not clear, from my point a view, and in light of what I've been told by three LEO (Waterford, Waterford, and Detroit) and my CCW intructor. I hear a lot of different opinions online, but get a different story face to face.

Lots of folks will tell you, NEVER ask a cop to tell you what the law is

What is the name of your "CCW intructor"?

I'm working on getting something from the MSP in writting.


Ask those face to face guru's to back up their wild ash claims with some facts. They won't be able to do it....

[Venator12]

I have been told that a few Michiganders have run into trouble using an IWB (in the waste band holster) as an OC (open-carry). In addition, I was told this included CPL holders.

LE (law enforcement) has stated that a IWB is not OC, and I as told the one or two times this has come up on charges the gunowners plead (per advise of their lawyer) to a lesser charge.

I have also been told LE has charged CPL holders who OC using IWB holsters because they failed to follow guidlines of the CPL (requires the concealment of the pistol).

Thoughts?

As have been stated you received a lot of bad information. You need to get your money back from your instructor.

And the recent story going around about the guy that was arrested for the IWB holster didn't have a CPL.

[Done Deal]

As have been stated you received a lot of bad information.


Are you feeling ok?
You certainly aren't known for your understatements....:winker:

[mishooter]

Only authorized conduct of the CPL is conceal pistol. If you fail to conceal the pistol, you would be in violation of your CPL. Thus IWB as an OC for a CPL holder concern.You are confused. A CPL allows one to carry concealed, it doesn't require that one do so.

[joe_robi]

so to ask a dumb ????
can a non cpl use the iwb as oc???

[Jvanasjr]

so to ask a dumb ????
can a non cpl use the iwb as oc???

you run the chance of a LEO saying its concealed... In my free opinion... got with OWB...

[Done Deal]

so to ask a dumb ????
can a non cpl use the iwb as oc???

Joe:

Did you miss the near record length thread about somebody getting popped for that very thing?

You are risking arrest if you try it.


http://www.migunowners.org/forum/showthread.php?t=35603

[joe_robi]

sorry i did miss that one but thanks for clarifiying it for me!!

[Thanis]

Done Deal, I appreciat your thoughts, but you reply comes off with a lot more emotion then is needed.

Several months back IWB counted as a valid OC in MI for non-CPL holders. It does not appear that is the case anymore. All sort of on-line postings "claimed" otherwise. People are experts until someone goes to jail or loses their CPL.

In addition, as far as challenging my CCW instructor and a few LEO I have spoken to, I have. They just tell me it is what they would do. I'm unemployeed, trying to pay the mortage. I don't have the resources to make a statement, or take a case to court to clarify the law.

I forget what it is called, but a person can take a legal issue to the courts to clarify the law. If I had the funs, I think I would so it. I find it odd some of the carry groups have not done this. Perhaps it is because resources are being better spent doing things like getting rid of pistol-free zones.

[Leader]

Done Deal, I appreciat your thoughts, but you reply comes off with a lot more emotion then is needed.

Several months back IWB counted as a valid OC in MI for non-CPL holders. It does not appear that is the case anymore. All sort of on-line postings "claimed" otherwise. People are experts until someone goes to jail or loses their CPL.

In addition, as far as challenging my CCW instructor and a few LEO I have spoken to, I have. They just tell me it is what they would do. I'm unemployeed, trying to pay the mortage. I don't have the resources to make a statement, or take a case to court to clarify the law.

I forget what it is called, but a person can take a legal issue to the courts to clarify the law. If I had the funs, I think I would so it. I find it odd some of the carry groups have not done this. Perhaps it is because
resources are being better spent doing things like getting rid of pistol-free zones.

Several months back, a young man was arrested for CCW. He didn't have a CPL and his crime was carrying with an IWB holster.
Through a plea bargain, that charge was dropped and he was convicted of a lesser crime.
We will never know if the CCW charge would have stuck because it never went to trial. That is the only example of it happening that *I* know of.
*MOST* reasonable people believe that it wouldn't hold up in court but a determined prosecutor could (and did) make it VERY expensive to find out.

There is NO Michigan law that prohibits carrying a handgun in an IWB holster uncovered with a CPL.

[Done Deal]

Done Deal, I appreciat your thoughts, but you reply comes off with a lot more emotion then is needed.



No emotion at all...and it appears that I achieved my objective by getting your attention.

I wanted to do that because as a new member you apparently were unaware of the search feature of this forum and missed the opportunity to read a boat load of material that already discussed the points you were bringing up. It is always a prudent thing to have a good foundation in fact before you begin making claims.

Furthermore, posting up on a public forum with "somebody told me" or "I heard" as a basis for your position just doesn't cut it. We try really hard to stick to the facts and those facts are best substantiated with laws, rules, regs, whatever that we can see for ourselves rather than reliance on what somebody else might have said. You too might be better served to require documentation for what somebody is attempting to feed you so that falsehoods are not perpetuated.

Emotion.....hah.....that is funny too....

[joe_robi]

tell em double D!!

[who dat]

I have been told that a few Michiganders have run into trouble using an IWB (in the waste band holster) as an OC (open-carry). In addition, I was told this included CPL holders.

LE (law enforcement) has stated that a IWB is not OC, and I as told the one or two times this has come up on charges the gunowners plead (per advise of their lawyer) to a lesser charge.

I have also been told LE has charged CPL holders who OC using IWB holsters because they failed to follow guidlines of the CPL (requires the concealment of the pistol).

Thoughts?
Here is a letter from the MSP in answer to the same question I posed to them a year or so ago:

Good afternoon,

Michigan Concealed Pistol Licenses grant the holder permission to carry a concealed pistol, but they do not require concealed carry. Therefore, a CPL holder may openly carry a pistol in places where it would be lawful to do so without a CPL.

Sincerely,

Sgt. Thomas Deasy
Michigan State Police
Executive Resource Section
714 S. Harrison Rd.
East Lansing, MI 48823
(517) 336-6441

[Venator12]

Are you feeling ok?
You certainly aren't known for your understatements....:winker:
Perhaps I'm mellowing in my 50's. I'm sure it will pass.:whistle:

[Jim Simmons]

Done Deal, I appreciat your thoughts, but you reply comes off with a lot more emotion then is needed.

Several months back IWB counted as a valid OC in MI for non-CPL holders. It does not appear that is the case anymore. All sort of on-line postings "claimed" otherwise. People are experts until someone goes to jail or loses their CPL.

In addition, as far as challenging my CCW instructor and a few LEO I have spoken to, I have. They just tell me it is what they would do. I'm unemployeed, trying to pay the mortage. I don't have the resources to make a statement, or take a case to court to clarify the law.

I forget what it is called, but a person can take a legal issue to the courts to clarify the law. If I had the funs, I think I would so it. I find it odd some of the carry groups have not done this. Perhaps it is because resources are being better spent doing things like getting rid of pistol-free zones.

You may be referring to a "declaratory judgment" action. And no, one cannot seek a declaratory judgment on IWB holsters in general, because "concealed" is a factual determination, made based on the circumstances of a given incident, by a finder of fact (typically a jury) based on the law that is given them. The jury instructions regarding concealed carry don't really define concealed carry. It says a pistol (or dangerous weapon) is concealed if it can't be easily seen by people who come into ordinary contact with the defendant.

I don't know that IWB was ever endorsed by anybody as "valid" OC. There's no real way of carrying that is clearly OC, short of a outside-all-clothing gunbelt and open top holster. A western style gunbelt is probably open, as is a military gunbelt, but with a military holster that covers the pistol, that could be construed as concealed carry.

That's one of the reasons that I don't recommend openly carrying a pistol in public, especially for people without a CPL. All a LEO has to say is that at some point the pistol was concealed -- perhaps by nothing more than your arm -- and you now face a felony charge. OC is, indeed legal, but fraught with all sorts of "landmines" to explode under the unwary.

[dougwg]

SNIP... OC is, indeed legal, but fraught with all sorts of "landmines" to explode under the unwary.

Which is why we are trying to educate people about the different aspects as well as the land-mines associated with OC instead of merely dismissing the person as someone with a "John Wayne" complex and telling them "OC is stupid carry". ;)

:deal2:

[MLG]

Which is why we are trying to educate people about the different aspects as well as the land-mines associated with OC instead of merely dismissing the person as someone with a "John Wayne" complex and telling them "OC is stupid carry". ;)

:deal2:


Now why on earth would you bring an outstanding American like John Wayne into this, Pilgrim?

Just kidding, but I wonder how lpng it'll be before people start saying "Who's John Wayne?"

[protectionisamust]

Jim / Done Deal,

So what I'm getting out of all this is that I can legally carry my pistol in a IWB holster (i do have a CPL) without having to worry about concealing
under my shirt or jacket? I am always worried if someone see's it printing let alone catch sight of my pistol. I thought that I would always get in trouble for "brandishing" if someone see's it. I am new to CC, and just looking for clarification.

:scratch:

[Venator12]

Jim / Done Deal,

So what I'm getting out of all this is that I can legally carry my pistol in a IWB holster (i do have a CPL) without having to worry about concealing
under my shirt or jacket? I am always worried if someone see's it printing let alone catch sight of my pistol. I thought that I would always get in trouble for "brandishing" if someone see's it. I am new to CC, and just looking for clarification.

:scratch:

Since OC is legal how can you be brandishing?

Check this AG opinion. For more info on OC go to www.miopencarry.org


BRANDISHING Opinion No. 7101 February 6, 2002: …In the absence of any reported Michigan appellate court decisions defining "brandishing," it is appropriate to rely upon dictionary definitions…..the term brandishing is defined as: "1. To wave or flourish menacingly, as a weapon. 2. To display ostentatiously. A menacing or defiant wave or flourish." This definition comports with the meaning ascribed to this term by courts of other jurisdictions…the court recognized that in federal sentencing guidelines, "brandishing" a weapon is defined to mean "that the weapon was pointed or waved about, or displayed in a threatening manner."

Applying these definitions to your question, it is clear that a reserve police officer, regardless whether he or she qualifies as a "peace officer," when carrying a handgun in a holster in plain view, is not waving or displaying the firearm in a threatening manner.

Thus, such conduct does not constitute brandishing a firearm in violation of section 234e of the Michigan Penal Code. It is my opinion, therefore, that…by carrying a handgun in a holster that is in plain view, does not violate section 234e of the Michigan Penal Code, which prohibits brandishing a firearm in public.

[BWHaas]

therefore, that…by carrying a handgun in a holster that is in plain view, does not violate section 234e of the Michigan Penal Code, which prohibits brandishing a firearm in public.

Wonderful Explanation. To the point is the best way to go. Thank you venator

[ghostrider]

While both Jim and Venator12 are correct, understand that it doesn't mean that carrying is not without pitfalls. Just because it's legal, does not mean that you won't have to deal with an officer who opposes private citizen carry of any sort.

[dpgperftest]

crossbreed:score:

[Jim Simmons]

While both Jim and Venator12 are correct, understand that it doesn't mean that carrying is not without pitfalls. Just because it's legal, does not mean that you won't have to deal with an officer who opposes private citizen carry of any sort.

Or that if your pistol is momentarily concealed, whether by you dropping your arm in front of the gun, or by a jacket or shirt flap, you face the risk of being charged with concealed carry -- less'n you have a CPL.

[mishooter]

Or that if your pistol is momentarily concealed, whether by you dropping your arm in front of the gun, or by a jacket or shirt flap, you face the risk of being charged with concealed carry -- less'n you have a CPL....and are not in a CEZ.

[ghostrider]

Or that if your pistol is momentarily concealed, whether by you dropping your arm in front of the gun, or by a jacket or shirt flap, you face the risk of being charged with concealed carry -- less'n you have a CPL.
Even with a CPL there are risks. There have been reports of people getting "special treatment", after disclosing. Some officers just don't like private citizens carrying a gun in any manner. There have been instances of where disclosure of carrying a firearm has resulted in an escalation of what would seemingly be a brief encounter.

[Done Deal]

Even with a CPL there are risks. There have been reports of people getting "special treatment", after disclosing. Some officers just don't like private citizens carrying a gun in any manner. There have been instances of where disclosure of carrying a firearm has resulted in an escalation of what would seemingly be a brief encounter.


Yup....there is always the potential for that when you have a citizen who thinks he knows his rights and attempts to prove that to the cop that is trying to do his job.

There are those who let their mouth preclude that "brief encounter" that you refer to....

[Leader]

Yup....there is always the potential for that when you have a citizen who thinks he knows his rights and attempts to prove that to the cop that is trying to do his job.

Even when the citizen is right and the cop is wrong. When a cop violates your rights it's because he can't be expected to know ALL the laws, when you do something wrong ignorance is no excuse.

There are those who let their mouth preclude that "brief encounter" that you refer to....

:)

[Jim Simmons]

Even with a CPL there are risks. There have been reports of people getting "special treatment", after disclosing. Some officers just don't like private citizens carrying a gun in any manner. There have been instances of where disclosure of carrying a firearm has resulted in an escalation of what would seemingly be a brief encounter.

Yes . . . and there have also been reports that a CPL has expedited matters. Some LEOs see a CPL as a sort of "Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval." I can testify to three positive LEO encounters, in which my CPL helped things. In two of those instances, I was carrying a pistol, too.

[dpgperftest]

:)


:shocked:

[ghostrider]

Even with a CPL there are risks. There have been reports of people getting "special treatment", after disclosing. Some officers just don't like private citizens carrying a gun in any manner. There have been instances of where disclosure of carrying a firearm has resulted in an escalation of what would seemingly be a brief encounter.Yup....there is always the potential for that when you have a citizen who thinks he knows his rights and attempts to prove that to the cop that is trying to do his job.

There are those who let their mouth preclude that "brief encounter" that you refer to....
What nonsense.

I made clear what I was talking about. "Some officers just don't like private citizens carrying a gun in any manner."

It may be what you are refering to, but it has nothing to do with my quote. People have reported that mere disclosure has resulted in escalation of a simple traffic stop. NOWHERE did my quote mention any suggestion of someone who, "thinks he knows his rights and attempts to prove that to the cop that is trying to do his job." That is in your mind, but not in my writing. Maybe you should re-read my post since you seem to see so much that isn't in it.

[ghostrider]

Yes . . . and there have also been reports that a CPL has expedited matters. Some LEOs see a CPL as a sort of "Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval." I can testify to three positive LEO encounters, in which my CPL helped things. In two of those instances, I was carrying a pistol, too.
I won't disagree with that. LE is just like any cross section of society. Some will be against it, and some for it. Some will be professional, and some unprofessional.

[Venator12]

Or that if your pistol is momentarily concealed, whether by you dropping your arm in front of the gun, or by a jacket or shirt flap, you face the risk of being charged with concealed carry -- less'n you have a CPL.

Well of course you can be arrested for anything, there are no guarantees, but the idiot cop that arrests a person because his arm momentarily covers his gun gets all the grief that will be rained upon him.

Under this definition if a non CPL holder is sitting in a booth with his gun to the wall he would be subject to arrest, while it could happen, God help us if it gets to that.

We all take risks and we must all fight for our rights and liberty and OC can help us do that.

[Venator12]

Yup....there is always the potential for that when you have a citizen who thinks he knows his rights and attempts to prove that to the cop that is trying to do his job.

There are those who let their mouth preclude that "brief encounter" that you refer to....

As GR already explained he was referring to just disclosing by law that you have a CPL can get things escalated. And as Jim said it can work for you as well.

[Jim Simmons]

But getting back on topic, an IWB holster could still be construed as concealed.

[Leader]

But getting back on topic, an IWB holster could still be construed as concealed.

I look at TX where open carry is not allowed.
If you had an IWB holster with your shirt tucked BEHIND the gun, you WOULD be arrested. Any reasonable person would recognize a gun in an IWB.
I sure don't want to be the test case but I really dought that they could make a CCW stick because an IWB holster was used.

[Jim Simmons]

Except less than a month ago, they just did.

Remember: it's not a legal decision whether it was concealed; that's a factual determination. And juries make findings of fact. If a jury calls it concealed, it's game over -- and you win a shiny new felony.

[joe_robi]

i thought ccw was a misdeminor?

[Jim Simmons]

i thought ccw was a misdeminor?

{Edited to add: CCW is a five year felony.}

Possession of an uninspected pistol used to be a misdemeanor. Now, possession of an unregistered pistol is a civil infraction.

{I typed that felony bit the first time. I wonder what happened to it. }

[joe_robi]

??? i am confused you said that if a jury thinks its CONCEALED its a felony,
and i said i thought it was a misd.
then you come back with possestion of a unreg. handgun is a CI?

are we talking about the same thing???
is it now only a CI if i had my reg. heater concealed?

[dougwg]

I think someone ran out of their much needed meds.

[joe_robi]

I think someone ran out of their much needed meds.
:slap:
it was a legitament question...

[Jim Simmons]

It's a perfectly legitimate question. I thought I answered it, but then discovered that the first sentence of my answer disappeared. Sorry 'bout that.

Concealed carry is a felony.

[joe_robi]

thanks jimbo

[dougwg]

:slap:
it was a legitament question...

I wasn't talking about you silly....:slap:

[Leader]

Except less than a month ago, they just did.

Remember: it's not a legal decision whether it was concealed; that's a factual determination. And juries make findings of fact. If a jury calls it concealed, it's game over -- and you win a shiny new felony.

Did I miss something here ?
Did someone get convicted of CCW for carrying in an IWB holster?

[Done Deal]

=Any reasonable person would recognize a gun in an IWB.
I sure don't want to be the test case but I really dought that they could make a CCW stick because an IWB holster was used.

Did I miss something here ?
Did someone get convicted of CCW for carrying in an IWB holster?


Someone got 'stuck' with a CCW charge and spent a bundle obtaining a plea agreement. So, how far do you want it stuck in you should you become another test case?


Do a survey of gun owners and ask them what an IWB holster is used for. Hmmmm.....inside the waistband....betcha most would say that it is used for concealed carry. Wanna take that bet?

[dougwg]

I feel that's a bad arguement DD.

While I as well as I'm sure most gun owners would say that IWB is for concealment, that point really is irrelevant.

It's the same arguement the anti's us about guns. I know you've heard "A guns ONLY purpose is to kill."

[Done Deal]

I feel that's a bad arguement DD.

While I as well as I'm sure most gun owners would say that IWB is for concealment, that point really is irrelevant.

It's the same arguement the anti's us about guns. I know you've heard "A guns ONLY purpose is to kill."

Not really the same arguement at all. Besides....a good prosecutor could have a helluva lot of fun with it. Heck, just take any IWB holster...stick it in your waist band without a gun....show it to a jury and.....

But again....do you know anybody that would enjoy taking a chance on a favorable jury verdict? I certainly don't. Bottom line is....IWB holsters were designed for concealed carry just like guns were designed for shooting bullets designed to perforate targets. Both do their job don't they?

[dougwg]

We agree on the big point of the IWB being a very bad idea for non-CPL's.
I've said it all along, if you don't have a CPL make damn sure the gun is fully in the open. This is one of the things that really pisses me of about all this. I told this guy NOT TO USE THE IWB. Did he listen to me? Nope!

We disagree on the "intended purpose" bearing any weight.

[Leader]

Someone got 'stuck' with a CCW charge and spent a bundle obtaining a plea agreement. So, how far do you want it stuck in you should you become another test case?


Do a survey of gun owners and ask them what an IWB holster is used for. Hmmmm.....inside the waistband....betcha most would say that it is used for concealed carry. Wanna take that bet?

Like I said, the CCW charge DIDN'T stick.

In your survey, ask gun owners if they can tell a gun is a gun if it isn't covered in an IWB holster. Any bets on how many can? Any bets on if your Grandmother can tell you have a gun in an UNCOVERED IWB holster?
Any bets about getting arrested in any state that doesn't allow open carry if you try it there?

[Done Deal]

Like I said, the CCW charge DIDN'T stick.


It stuck until the defendant copped a plea to avoid the risk of finding out what a jury would think.



In your survey, ask gun owners if they can tell a gun is a gun if it isn't covered in an IWB holster. Any bets on how many can?

Too many variables for a valid determination and you know that.


Any bets on if your Grandmother can tell you have a gun in an UNCOVERED IWB holster?

Who cares what my Grandmother thinks unless she is sitting on the jury?

Any bets about getting arrested in any state that doesn't allow open carry if you try it there?

You ain't in Kansas anymore Dorothy. We aren't in another state are we?



IWB carry for a non-CPL holder is looking for trouble, pure and simple. Why in the world would you want to argue about the sensibility anyway?






Dougwg: I guess we do kinda disagree upon the weight "intended purpose" might carry but....the fact remains....if it is given any weight at all....that does not bode well for the person who would be adversely effected by the outcome of a decision.

[Leader]

Ok... Then can I assume that you approve of a CPL holder carrying in an uncovered IWB holster?

Do you believe that a gun carried in an IWB with the shirt tucked in behind the gun would NOT attract the attention of the police?

[Done Deal]

Ok... Then can I assume that you approve of a CPL holder carrying in an uncovered IWB holster?

Do you believe that a gun carried in an IWB with the shirt tucked in behind the gun would NOT attract the attention of the police?

For starters, it really doesn't matter if I approve or not. I believe that for most of us, concealed carry is the way to go.

As for the second question....who knows? The police would have to see it for starters so, it is purely speculative on how much of an attraction that method of carry might create at any given time. I guess if it doesn't attract any attention whatsoever, it is kind of a moot point isn't it?

[Shyster]

IMHO, ANYONE who elects OC should establish their own legal defense fund just in case. First, it is too easy to get tripped up and make a mistake. Second, a prosecutor can just about always CHARGE you and then guess what? You are in court and need an attorney! Even if it turns out you should not have been charged you will still be out a boatload of money in legal fees (don't even THINK about court-appointed counsel or suing the municipality either).

OC is legal no question. Just be prepared for unintended consequences.

[dougwg]

IMHO, ANYONE who elects OC should establish their own legal defense fund just in case. First, it is too easy to get tripped up and make a mistake. Second, a prosecutor can just about always CHARGE you and then guess what? You are in court and need an attorney! Even if it turns out you should not have been charged you will still be out a boatload of money in legal fees (don't even THINK about court-appointed counsel or suing the municipality either).

OC is legal no question. Just be prepared for unintended consequences.

Do you suggest the same for both CPL holders as well as non-CPL...

[Shyster]

Do you suggest the same for both CPL holders as well as non-CPL...
Yes. Remember, you can almost ALWAYS be charged. Maybe not convicted, but charged.

[dougwg]

I aint ascared

P.S. I have a CPL

[Leader]

Yes. Remember, you can almost ALWAYS be charged. Maybe not convicted, but charged.

Then I guess you would suggest that people NEVER be around anyone else because they *CAN* be charged with sexual assault.
And they shouldn't expect to be able to sue for costs or false arrest or anything.
Being arrested for NOT violating the law should be expected & accepted.

[SIDE ARM]

My $.02 worth.

We Michiganders are fortunate to have no distinct laws prohibiting us to open carry a handgun. We also have CPL laws that allow most any law abiding Michigander to obtain a CPL license, and to carry a handgun concealed.
So if you want to flex your right to OC, then plain view OC. IWB is not only a holster covering most of the gun, but now you have your pants covering the holster. IMHO that is NOT OC, it's a weak CC.

Lets face reality, lots of people don't like guns, that's their problem / prerogative. Why would we as gun owners, try to make problems for ourselves?
If you tease a dog long enough, your gonna get bit!

Carry "OPEN" where and when you can, otherwise (if your legal) keep it concealed the best you can and still have it readily usable!

If you want more, write the AG and ask for an opinion.



SA
8)

[who dat]

My $.02 worth.

We Michiganders are fortunate to have no distinct laws prohibiting us to open carry a handgun. We also have CPL laws that allow most any law abiding Michigander to obtain a CPL license, and to carry a handgun concealed.
So if you want to flex your right to OC, then plain view OC. IWB is not only a holster covering most of the gun, but now you have your pants covering the holster. IMHO that is NOT OC, it's a weak CC.

Lets face reality, lots of people don't like guns, that's their problem / prerogative. Why would we as gun owners, try to make problems for ourselves?
If you tease a dog long enough, your gonna get bit!

Carry "OPEN" where and when you can, otherwise (if your legal) keep it concealed the best you can and still have it readily usable!

If you want more, write the AG and ask for an opinion.



SA
8)All good except the AG part. The AG will not and can not, by law, correspond with or give an opinion to an ordinary citizen. You have to get the PD, Sheriff, Rep. or Senator of local municipality to make the contact.

You can, as Dougwg has said, make a criminal complaint at the AG office. Someone other than the AG will take the complaint. I have never heard of any response to that in these forums.

[Shyster]

Then I guess you would suggest that people NEVER be around anyone else because they *CAN* be charged with sexual assault.
And they shouldn't expect to be able to sue for costs or false arrest or anything.
Being arrested for NOT violating the law should be expected & accepted.
Not an accurate comparison.

First, "being around anyone else" is not considered a, for lack of a better term, fringe activity. OC is. The police are not (likely) going to arrest you for "being around anyone else" while they may decide to mess with you if you are OCing. Prosecutors are not going to make a real distinct effort to charge you with a crime for "being around anyone else" but they very possibly will if you are OCing. Cops and prosecutors will be out to get you if you are OCing, or at the very least watching you like a hawk.

No money to hire an attorney? Ok, you can get a court-appointed attorney! Well that may work out but for one little thing. Fees for representation of indigent defendants have not been raised since the early 1970s. Attorneys doing CAC for their main source of income can only make a living if they do a LOT of cases. Not a lot of time to devote to individual cases.

Second, you must ask yourself how far you are willing to go to defend your right to OC. I keep reading blahblahblah OC blahblahblah and that's fine. I applaud you. I will be happy to assist you if a police officer decides to arrest you, whether or not you have actually violated the laws regarding OC. I charge flat rate for criminal representation and my price for a felony charge (that, of course you want to go to trial on because you act out of principal) would probably start out at $7,500 (pretty good price for a felony trial but this would be discounted because I actually care about the issue). I require full payment before the date of trial too.

Third, let's assume you have successfully beat the criminal prosecution. You want to sue for a wrongful arrest? Wonderful! I will be happy to help you on that too! My rate for civil litigation is $250/hr with a minimum retainer of $1,000. Contingency fee you ask? Ummm, no. I wouldn't do it and I don't know many attorneys who would on this type of action.

People like you who support OC just plain astound me. Do you actually believe that the government is going to protect your right to OC? I personally don't trust police or prosecutors to uphold my 2A rights. God bless you if you do.

OC is your right. I agree 100%. Just be prepared for possible consequences. Make sure you have money for a lawyer and a competent one at that.

[Jim Simmons]

A very good criminal lawyer, too. I have a referral list, if anyone ever needs one.

[Venator12]

Not an accurate comparison.

First, "being around anyone else" is not considered a, for lack of a better term, fringe activity. OC is. The police are not (likely) going to arrest you for "being around anyone else" while they may decide to mess with you if you are OCing. Prosecutors are not going to make a real distinct effort to charge you with a crime for "being around anyone else" but they very possibly will if you are OCing. Cops and prosecutors will be out to get you if you are OCing, or at the very least watching you like a hawk.

No money to hire an attorney? Ok, you can get a court-appointed attorney! Well that may work out but for one little thing. Fees for representation of indigent defendants have not been raised since the early 1970s. Attorneys doing CAC for their main source of income can only make a living if they do a LOT of cases. Not a lot of time to devote to individual cases.

Second, you must ask yourself how far you are willing to go to defend your right to OC. I keep reading blahblahblah OC blahblahblah and that's fine. I applaud you. I will be happy to assist you if a police officer decides to arrest you, whether or not you have actually violated the laws regarding OC. I charge flat rate for criminal representation and my price for a felony charge (that, of course you want to go to trial on because you act out of principal) would probably start out at $7,500 (pretty good price for a felony trial but this would be discounted because I actually care about the issue). I require full payment before the date of trial too.

Third, let's assume you have successfully beat the criminal prosecution. You want to sue for a wrongful arrest? Wonderful! I will be happy to help you on that too! My rate for civil litigation is $250/hr with a minimum retainer of $1,000. Contingency fee you ask? Ummm, no. I wouldn't do it and I don't know many attorneys who would on this type of action.

People like you who support OC just plain astound me. Do you actually believe that the government is going to protect your right to OC? I personally don't trust police or prosecutors to uphold my 2A rights. God bless you if you do.

OC is your right. I agree 100%. Just be prepared for possible consequences. Make sure you have money for a lawyer and a competent one at that.

All possible true statements, but the fact remains of the thousands of hours people have been OCing over the last 2 years in Michigan we know of one charge for concealed carry while clearly OCing, and it involved an IWB holster which has yet to be determined by any case law if it is OC or CC. So, any of the situations that you mentioned could happen, the reality is it hasn't been a problem so far.

And if more so called 2nd amendment supporters OCed more it would become less of an issue as LEO's and the public become aware of it's legality.

[Jim Simmons]

Unfortunately, that means that there's a low risk of a big penalty. Concealed carry, as was charged, is a five year felony.

Had that been in Oakland County, they might have taken it to a trial.

[Venator12]

Unfortunately, that means that there's a low risk of a big penalty. Concealed carry, as was charged, is a five year felony.

Had that been in Oakland County, they might have taken it to a trial.
He wasn't arrested for Open Carry. That's the point I'm making, no trials for open carry. One wrongful arrest for having a firearm in a city that had an illegal ordinance banning firearms. A Federal law suit followed.

So the argument that most everyone that OC's will be arrested as stated farther up is faulty.

[Jim Simmons]

He was charged, was he not, with carrying a concealed pistol. Do I have that correct?

That's a five year felony.

And whatever became of this "federal lawsuit" you mention?

[Venator12]

He was charged, was he not, with carrying a concealed pistol. Do I have that correct?

That's a five year felony.

And whatever became of this "federal lawsuit" you mention?
First:

Yes he was and it is. I was saying that he wasn't charged for OCing, as shyster was saying people would be all the time. We don't know of anyone that was arrested simply for OCing or disturbing the peace. Why is that, oh OC is legal.

The suit was filed about a month ago. I have not heard of anything lately, as you know these take time. It was a federal civil rights violation suit. This was for the incident in Grand Haven last year.

[Jim Simmons]

Yes he was and it is. I was saying that he wasn't charged for OCing, as shyster was saying people would be all the time. We don't know of anyone that was arrested simply for OCing or disturbing the peace. Why is that, oh OC is legal.

Precisely. One of my points about OC is that it takes but a momentary swipe of an arm over a pistol, or a second of a jacket or shirt falling over a pistol, before OC becomes CC, and without a CPL, that's a felony. Boom. Just like that.

[dougwg]

Precisely. One of my points about OC is that it takes but a momentary swipe of an arm over a pistol, or a second of a jacket or shirt falling over a pistol, before OC becomes CC, and without a CPL, that's a felony. Boom. Just like that.


Right!

Therefore we need to get these BS, racist based gun laws changed.

OC as well as CC should be LEGAL without ANY permit.

It should also be legal to carry inside your vehicle if you're a U.S. citizen.

[MLG]

Wow, OC is nothing but an uphill battle.

If you can't convince the people on this website that OC is such a wonderful idea, in todays political environment, I only see OC as a threat to our 2nd Amendment Rights.

Media paints everyone that supports Gun Rights as right wing fringe looney. Not saying it's right but I do believe this to be a fact.

[dougwg]

Wow, OC is nothing but an uphill battle.
Agree with the uphill part, disagree with the "nothing but" part.

If you can't convince the people on this website that OC is such a wonderful idea, in todays political environment,
There are only a small handfull (yet very vocal) on this message board that disagree with OC as a general practic.

I only see OC as a threat to our 2nd Amendment Rights.
I disagree

Media paints everyone that supports Gun Rights as right wing fringe looney. Not saying it's right but I do believe this to be a fact.
The media is wrong and it's my job as well as yours to prove them wrong any chance we get.

:flag:

[Leader]

Precisely. One of my points about OC is that it takes but a momentary swipe of an arm over a pistol, or a second of a jacket or shirt falling over a pistol, before OC becomes CC, and without a CPL, that's a felony. Boom. Just like that.

I sure would like to see an example of something this STUPID actually happening.
Sounds an awfully lot like first one shot, gun stolen thing.

Of course, I don't believe the IWB holster case would have ever made it to court as a CCW charge either. Too bad he didn't have more backing or just more money.

[Done Deal]

I sure would like to see an example of something this STUPID actually happening.
Sounds an awfully lot like first one shot, gun stolen thing.


Lemme just say that when I am carrying my PM9 IWB and if I walked around with my hand in my pocket....odds are pretty good that you would never see a gun as I approached you. And, iffin you were LE and of a mind to do something about that.....I don't want to be the one going to jail.


Of course, I don't believe the IWB holster case would have ever made it to court as a CCW charge either. Too bad he didn't have more backing or just more money.

What would money or backing have to do with anything if he happened to get convicted? Easy for somebody to provide computer commentary but, a helluva lot different if you are the defendant. Nobody with any sense wants to be in that position.


Seems to me that the person that got jammed up failed to heed the advice of an open carry advocate who suggested that he refrain from doing that very thing without a CPL. That proved to be a mighty expensive learning experience I do believe.....damned shame.

[Shyster]

Wow, OC is nothing but an uphill battle.

If you can't convince the people on this website that OC is such a wonderful idea, in todays political environment, I only see OC as a threat to our 2nd Amendment Rights.

Media paints everyone that supports Gun Rights as right wing fringe looney. Not saying it's right but I do believe this to be a fact.
:bow:

[Jim Simmons]

Right!

Therefore we need to get these BS, racist based gun laws changed.

OC as well as CC should be LEGAL without ANY permit.

It should also be legal to carry inside your vehicle if you're a U.S. citizen.

OMG. Something on which we agree. :shocked:

I sure would like to see an example of something this STUPID actually happening.

"Evidence that a defendant placed a revolver in his belt or waistband so that the weapon could not be readily seen has been found sufficient to uphold a CCW conviction." People v Hernandez-Garcia, 266 Mich App 416, 422 (2005), aff'd in pertinent part 477 Mich 1039 (2007). And cases cited therein.

[dpgperftest]

OC is every ones Fundamental right thats my thouts.I like CC its less hassle

[dougwg]

OMG. Something on which we agree. :shocked:



"Evidence that a defendant placed a revolver in his belt or waistband so that the weapon could not be readily seen has been found sufficient to uphold a CCW conviction." People v Hernandez-Garcia, 266 Mich App 416, 422 (2005), aff'd in pertinent part 477 Mich 1039 (2007). And cases cited therein.

Arguing intent is essential in this matter, given the case law you just sighted.

The gentleman in Canton placed the gun in it's holster so it would be secure, not to make the gun less readily seen.

It would be one thing if they[the court] just said "placed in waistband" BUT they qualified that action and tied it together with intent making both the action AND the intent of the action married together in order to establish the violation.

Therefore without BOTH of those items (action and the intent) there is no violation under this case law.

IANAL but it seems a pretty simple concept to grasp to me.

[dougwg]

OC is every ones Fundamental right thats my thouts.I like CC its less hassle

Personal protection is the fundamental right.

The gun is the tool in which the right is secured.

OC and CC are just carry modes, not worthy of critical discussion. Meaning I care about the difference between OC vs CC about as much as paying for a piece of gum with 2 dimes and a nickel vs a quarter.

Boil it down a bit and ponder this.... a thin piece of cotton changes an action from perfectly legal and righteous to that of a felony worthy of fines, loss of rights and incarceration.

"A thin piece of cotton" (TPOC)......how in the hell can this make any sense to any rational human?

[Jim Simmons]

Because it's the difference between open and concealed. And the reality is that it makes all the difference in the world today.

[ghostrider]

Personal protection is the fundamental right.

The gun is the tool in which the right is secured.

OC and CC are just carry modes, not worthy of critical discussion. Meaning I care about the difference between OC vs CC about as much as paying for a piece of gum with 2 dimes and a nickel vs a quarter.

Boil it down a bit and ponder this.... a thin piece of cotton changes an action from perfectly legal and righteous to that of a felony worthy of fines, loss of rights and incarceration.

"A thin piece of cotton" (TPOC)......how in the hell can this make any sense to any rational human?
I prefer to use the quarter, because it means there will be less coins in my pocket to jingle jangle.

[Done Deal]

Arguing intent is essential in this matter, given the case law you just sighted.



Arguing intent is possibly as far as it might get. The language can easily be interpreted to mean the end result without any intent whatsoever.

All the "so" really means is that something did in fact occur---in this case, a firearm was not readily seen because of the manner in which it was carried inside a belt or a waistband.

[dougwg]

Because it's the difference between open and concealed. And the reality is that it makes all the difference in the world today.


Jim, You have no room to talk at all about reality and minor differences after that little burp about how illegals are only that because of a technicality.

[Jim Simmons]

Yes, actually, I do, doug. Despite your efforts otherwise, I have as much right to my opinion, and my right to express it, as you do.

[Hugle]

Yes, actually, I do, doug. Despite your efforts otherwise, I have as much right to my opinion, and my right to express it, as you do.
And people that carried their firearms "in the open" made this possible for you to do so...........................

[dougwg]

Yes, actually, I do, doug. Despite your efforts otherwise, I have as much right to my opinion, and my right to express it, as you do.
I never questioned your RIGHTS. Pretty shitty try at trying to make me look like a bad guy. You have every right to your opinions but when you talk out both sides of your mouth and someone calls you out on it, try to act like an adult and accept your mistake.

I said you had "no room". I thought I could beat around the bush a bit for politeness sake and you could understand, I guess you can't so I'll have to be more straight forward.

Jim Simmons, you sir are a short sighted, cowardly hypocrite with a health side of bigotry.

The mere fact that you don't allow CPL holders to carry in your office speaks volumes.

Please don't take all that the wrong way though, I don't hate you, I pity you.

[MLG]

Boil it down a bit and ponder this.... a thin piece of cotton changes an action from perfectly legal and righteous to that of a felony worthy of fines, loss of rights and incarceration.

"A thin piece of cotton" (TPOC)......how in the hell can this make any sense to any rational human?[/QUOTE]

I like the acronym, TPOC.

I agree that a thin piece of cotton making the difference between being legal or open to be charged with a felony does seem to be silly but it's not the only situation that a TPOC is the protective barrier.

Ponder a few examples where the TPOC is the determining factor between legal and illegal or protected and unprotected.

The TPOC may be an article of clothing and if it's not covering certain body parts, you can be charged with indecent exposure.

TPOC can be camoflaged to blend into the natural environment and this can be life saving in certain situations.

A TPOC can protect you from skin cancer when it protects you from the sun.

A TPOC is the Material that is suspended between first class and economy class on the air lines. Cross the line and you can be arrested when the plane lands.

The Yellow Tape the police stretch around a crime scene... One side is legal the other is not. Although it's not a TPOC, the application of establishing a line or a barrier that's not to be crossed is conceptually the same.

Concerning the Open Carry vs Concealed IWB item being discussed in this topic, the TPOC seems to be the Line or Barrier that has been established that we are warned not to cross.

Never underestimate the TPOC.

[dougwg]

Good points MLG but it's still silly nonetheless. Especially if printing.

[Jim Simmons]

I don't know where you got the idea that concealed carry is not allowed in my office. It is.

Open carry is not allowed.

And there are a few souls that, quite frankly, I don't trust to carry concealed in my office either. I invite them to leave their iron at home. If they choose to go elsewhere for representation, that is certainly their right.

Beyond that . . . . well, we're getting off topic.

[dougwg]

Yeah... \/\/hatever....