partial exposure of concealed firearm

Status
Not open for further replies.
O

old lady new shooter

Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2015
Messages
30,615
In Arizona if you are over 21 and not a prohibited person it is legal to carry open or concealed. I have this vague idea (which might well be from some other jurisdiction) that if you are carrying concealed and your garment accidently moves in such a way as to partially expose your gun, that's illegal? Would appreciate if someone here can clarify for me, thanks in advance. :)
 
I can't think of a single jurisdiction in which "partially-one-way-or-the-other" would be unlawful unless one of those "ways" was, in itself, unlawful, and it might appear that was the intent.

Since OC and CC are both legal in Arizona, then "both" must be legal in Arizona. After all, isn't part of an "openly-carried" firearm still technically concealed from the ordinary sight of another person if it's in a holster?

Yes, in some other jurisdictions in which OC is unlawful (mine, for example), the accidental exposure of a normally-concealed firearm being carried lawfully would run afoul of the law. That was the case here, too, until it was addressed in 2011, I believe, by a law decriminalizing the "brief open display" of a normally-concealed firearm (this was supposed to be an OC bill, but got heavily watered down.)
 
old lady new shooter said:
In Arizona if you are over 21 and not a prohibited person it is legal to carry open or concealed. I have this vague idea (which might well be from some other jurisdiction) that if you are carrying concealed and your garment accidently moves in such a way as to partially expose your gun, that's illegal? Would appreciate if someone here can clarify for me, thanks in advance. :)
Click to expand...
It used to be that way in Florida; then some common sense prevailed and inadvertent exposure such as you describe is now no longer considered brandishing.
 
Living next door in NM, we also have open carry. However, concealed carry here requires a permit, unlike AZ. I visit my son and his family regularly in Sierra Vista, and have always felt comfortable with open carry there. But, if I have to go to Tucson or Phoenix, it is less hassle to carry concealed due to the high concentration of the hoplophobic in those urban environments. Another reason why I don't regularly open carry in Santa Fe or even Albuquerque, even though it would be legal.
 
old lady new shooter said:
In Arizona if you are over 21 and not a prohibited person it is legal to carry open or concealed. I have this vague idea (which might well be from some other jurisdiction) that if you are carrying concealed and your garment accidently moves in such a way as to partially expose your gun, that's illegal? Would appreciate if someone here can clarify for me, thanks in advance. :)
Click to expand...
I haven't dug into AZ statutes (and I know I should before opining), but I have a hard time imagining that if: (a) open carry is legal; and (b) concealed carry is legal; that (c) inadvertent exposure would somehow be illegal.
 
Spats McGee said:
I haven't dug into AZ statutes (and I know I should before opining), but I have a hard time imagining that if: (a) open carry is legal; and (b) concealed carry is legal; that (c) inadvertent exposure would somehow be illegal.
Click to expand...
That's what logic told me too, but since laws aren't always logical I figured I should ask. :) I did try looking through the statutes last night but did not find this issue mentioned, however I was already tired and maybe not looking hard enough.

Anyway, thanks very much. :)
 
One thing to worry about is the State's law on "brandishing". "Accidentally" letting your jacket or shirt expose your CC in order to "intimidate" someone might be construed as brandishing and there can be laws against that. (Check out Washington.)
 
deadin said:
One thing to worry about is the State's law on "brandishing". "Accidentally" letting your jacket or shirt expose your CC in order to "intimidate" someone might be construed as brandishing and there can be laws against that. (Check out Washington.)
Click to expand...
I've yet to see or hear about anyone being charged under the statue (provided below); interestingly, the open-carry faction in this state a few years ago caused most of the law enforcement agencies to issue training bulletins to their officers clarifying what constitutes intent to intimidate or warranting alarm -- holstered handguns generally do neither. And intent has to be proven (usually difficult absent actions or words), and although metro King County and a few other pockets around here are totally wussified and populated by whining liberal hoplophobes, I do not think this is an issue to worry about (in this state or Arizona, where I've also resided).

RCW 9.41.270
Weapons apparently capable of producing bodily harm—Unlawful carrying or handling—Penalty—Exceptions.
(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to carry, exhibit, display, or draw any firearm, dagger, sword, knife or other cutting or stabbing instrument, club, or any other weapon apparently capable of producing bodily harm, in a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons.
(2) Any person violating the provisions of subsection (1) above shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor. If any person is convicted of a violation of subsection (1) of this section, the person shall lose his or her concealed pistol license, if any. The court shall send notice of the revocation to the department of licensing, and the city, town, or county which issued the license.
(3) Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to or affect the following:
(a) Any act committed by a person while in his or her place of abode or fixed place of business;
(b) Any person who by virtue of his or her office or public employment is vested by law with a duty to preserve public safety, maintain public order, or to make arrests for offenses, while in the performance of such duty;
(c) Any person acting for the purpose of protecting himself or herself against the use of presently threatened unlawful force by another, or for the purpose of protecting another against the use of such unlawful force by a third person;
(d) Any person making or assisting in making a lawful arrest for the commission of a felony; or
(e) Any person engaged in military activities sponsored by the federal or state governments.
 
This is very interesting. But unless a person did something else, like point to the gun, or say something about it, it seems like "intent" would be hard to show.

For myself personally I was thinking of a truly accidental exposure, like maybe you're carrying several bundles in your arms and one of them pushes your shirt up or something.
 
Intent is often used as a legal term but can be construed many different ways. Just look at instances where wearing a Trump MAGA hat have somehow demonstrated intent to harm someone ie minority to violence. While most people would not see an intent to harm of a shirt riding up over a firearm, that is not to say an unreasonable person would feel the same way.

As such I like open carry legislation for this very reason, even though I disagree with open carry from a tactical perspective. If open carry is legal, and concealed carry is legal, then there is very little legal basis for brandishing a holstered firearm purely by accident.
 
alsaqr said:
Never heard of anyone being charged for accidently exposing a concealed handgun.
Click to expand...
Not only has that happened, people have been charged because the presence of the firearm could be detected though clothing ("printing").

The problem led to the enactment of laws in some stated decriminalizing the incidental, unintentional exposure of a concealed weapon.
 
So I found out Arizona has an actual "defensive display" statute:

13-421. Justification; defensive display of a firearm; definition

A. The defensive display of a firearm by a person against another is justified when and to the extent a reasonable person would believe that physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the use or attempted use of unlawful physical force or deadly physical force.

B. This section does not apply to a person who:

1. Intentionally provokes another person to use or attempt to use unlawful physical force.

2. Uses a firearm during the commission of a serious offense as defined in section 13-706 or violent crime as defined in section 13-901.03.

C. This section does not require the defensive display of a firearm before the use of physical force or the threat of physical force by a person who is otherwise justified in the use or threatened use of physical force.

D. For the purposes of this section, "defensive display of a firearm" includes:

1. Verbally informing another person that the person possesses or has available a firearm.

2. Exposing or displaying a firearm in a manner that a reasonable person would understand was meant to protect the person against another's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force or deadly physical force.

3. Placing the person's hand on a firearm while the firearm is contained in a pocket, purse or other means of containment or transport.
 
old lady new shooter said:
The statute is relevant to the overall topic.
Click to expand...
Not really.

The OP was about the accidental exposure of a firearm, and accidental exposure constitutes a legal problem only where (1) firearms may only be carried concealed, and (2) there are no exceptions covering incidental exposure.

The Arizona "Defensive Display" statute, which was enacted around a decade ago, established the immediate threat of non-deadly, physical force as a lawful basis for justifying certain deliberate behavior that had previously been characterized in case law as felonious,
 
Kleanbore said:
Not only has that happened, people have been charged because the presence of the firearm could be detected though clothing ("printing").

The problem led to the enactment of laws in some stated decriminalizing the incidental, unintentional exposure of a concealed weapon.
Click to expand...


Before open carry became legal in Texas (with permit) you could be charged if your concealed gun “printed” enough for a “reasonable and prudent “person could tell it was a gun. Thank goodness that was changed!
 
km101 said:
Before open carry became legal in Texas (with permit) you could be charged if your concealed gun “printed” enough for a “reasonable and prudent “person could tell it was a gun. Thank goodness that was changed!
Click to expand...

Good to know. I recall seeing many blog and otherwise internet posts from Texans worried about printing. It never made much sense to me that such a gun friendly state would make a firearm outline under clothing a punishable offense.
 
Kleanbore said:
Not really.

The OP was about the accidental exposure of a firearm, and accidental exposure constitutes a legal problem only where (1) firearms may only be carried concealed, and (2) there are no exceptions covering incidental exposure.

The Arizona "Defensive Display" statute, which was enacted around a decade ago, established the immediate threat of non-deadly, physical force as a lawful basis for justifying certain deliberate behavior that had previously been characterized in case law as felonious,
Click to expand...
I understand the difference very well. I think the two topics are related.
 
It was in answer to a previous post, #11, which brought up brandishing. No, as a life long AZ resident, if your lawfully carried concealed firearms or firearms became accidentally exposed, you just went from legal - concealed, to legal - open. No worries. Constitutional Carry rocks.
 
herrwalther said:
I recall seeing many blog and otherwise internet posts from Texans worried about printing. It never made much sense to me that such a gun friendly state would make a firearm outline under clothing a punishable offense.
Click to expand...
It was a big deal in Florida, too. They still do not permit open carry, but there is now a provision in the law decriminalizing brief exposure of a concealed forearm as long as there is no intent to impress others in any way.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

3Crows
  • Locked
Partially concealed carry ?
2
Replies
29
Views
3K
Kleanbore
K
S
  • Locked
Open Carry vs Concealed Carry
2
Replies
27
Views
2K
Saddlebag Preacher
Saddlebag Preacher
E
  • Locked
Debate concerning Virginia open/concealed carry...
Replies
3
Views
607
NavyLCDR
N
P
  • Locked
Open carry in Wisconsin??
Replies
23
Views
1K
Desertdog
D
W
  • Locked
Is carrying a loaded firearm legal?
2
Replies
43
Views
2K
tyme
T
Back
Top