Jump to content


Photo

Can I get a Definition of "Partially Concealed"


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
26 replies to this topic

#1 wesk1318

  • Members
  • 8 posts
  • Joined: 11-June 13

Posted 17 June 2013 - 01:02 PM

Does this mean in a holster on my hip and you can only see the grip? Attached is a pic of my elephant skin holster, elephant Luchesse boots, E-series 1911 and matching S&W belt buckle. I find this the most comfortable way to carry a full size side arm (legal to carry here in TN). Do you think this counts as Partially Concealed??

Attached Thumbnails

  • 246557_948783957495_555319213_n.jpg


#2 RoadyRunner

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,028 posts
  • Joined: 03-October 12

Posted 17 June 2013 - 01:04 PM

The bill says "completely or mostly concealed" - so no, that would not satisfy.

IC Supporting member
NRA member
NRA certified Basic Pistol Instructor

Illinois Certified Concealed Carry Instructor

 


#3 wesk1318

  • Members
  • 8 posts
  • Joined: 11-June 13

Posted 17 June 2013 - 01:14 PM

I would say that most of the gun is consealed, 1/2 of the gun you cannot see

#4 RockerXX

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,110 posts
  • Joined: 29-August 11

Posted 17 June 2013 - 01:15 PM

The bill says "completely or mostly concealed"


And if we use common language 'mostly' is defined as over 50% aka the greater part... I WOULDN'T push the issue but taking common definitions, you could technically walk around with a partially exposed firearm, as long as the exposed area doesn't exceed half of the firearm...

The wording is mostly there for 'printing' or an 'inadvertent reveal' of a fully concealed firearm and I would follow that line...

What weighs six ounces, sits in a tree and is very dangerous?
A sparrow with a machine gun!


#5 wesk1318

  • Members
  • 8 posts
  • Joined: 11-June 13

Posted 17 June 2013 - 01:18 PM

The bill says "completely or mostly concealed" - so no, that would not satisfy.


(1) carry a loaded or unloaded concealed firearm, fully
concealed or partially concealed, on or about his or her
person;

#6 RockerXX

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,110 posts
  • Joined: 29-August 11

Posted 17 June 2013 - 01:24 PM


The bill says "completely or mostly concealed" - so no, that would not satisfy.


(1) carry a loaded or unloaded concealed firearm, fully
concealed or partially concealed, on or about his or her
person;


And if that wording stays, pretty much any holster will technically do, even so called 'open carry' holsters...

Edited by RockerXX, 17 June 2013 - 01:24 PM.

What weighs six ounces, sits in a tree and is very dangerous?
A sparrow with a machine gun!


#7 bobapunk

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,348 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 09

Posted 17 June 2013 - 01:56 PM

Seems to follow the letter of the law; probably not the intent of the law though...

#8 KarlJ

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,519 posts
  • Joined: 20-November 12

Posted 17 June 2013 - 02:03 PM

Webster defines conceal:


1 : to prevent disclosure or recognition of <conceal the truth> 2 : to place out of sight <concealed himself behind the door>


Given the definition of conceal I would wager that the "partially" concealed bit in the law was put there as to not criminalize those who accidentally expose their weapon.
Applied 1/5/13 Approved 2/28/14 Recieved 3/7/14 postmarked 3/4 Will Co. / Cook Co. border

#9 POAT54

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,096 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 13

Posted 17 June 2013 - 02:09 PM

1. Get a GOOD lawyer
2. Try it.
3. Let us know how it works out.

“Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”
― Benjamin Franklin


#10 RoadyRunner

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,028 posts
  • Joined: 03-October 12

Posted 17 June 2013 - 02:13 PM



The bill says "completely or mostly concealed" - so no, that would not satisfy.


(1) carry a loaded or unloaded concealed firearm, fully
concealed or partially concealed, on or about his or her
person;


And if that wording stays, pretty much any holster will technically do, even so called 'open carry' holsters...


Actually, in definitions...

10 "Concealed firearm" means a loaded or unloaded handgun
11 carried on or about a person completely or mostly concealed
12 from view of the public or on or about a person within a
13 vehicle.

IC Supporting member
NRA member
NRA certified Basic Pistol Instructor

Illinois Certified Concealed Carry Instructor

 


#11 wesk1318

  • Members
  • 8 posts
  • Joined: 11-June 13

Posted 17 June 2013 - 02:14 PM

1. Get a GOOD lawyer
2. Try it.
3. Let us know how it works out.


Just trying to start good conversation on the topic like a forum is designed for, and from a guy that does carry everyday conceal gets old in a hurry

#12 RoadyRunner

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,028 posts
  • Joined: 03-October 12

Posted 17 June 2013 - 02:15 PM

I see. 'Definitions' conflicts with section 10 C 1. Nice.

IC Supporting member
NRA member
NRA certified Basic Pistol Instructor

Illinois Certified Concealed Carry Instructor

 


#13 lockman

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,077 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 06

Posted 17 June 2013 - 02:36 PM

with the language of the bill you should be fine as most holster cover about 50% on the exposed side and your body takes care of 100% of the other side, so upwards of 75-80% total coverage. My concern was the answers provided by Brandon Phelphs on legislative intent, limiting the exposure to inadvertent. Carrying with 98% covered with 2% exposed 100% of the time is not by any definition inadvertent.
"We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately."
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1776

Life Member NRA, ISRA, CCRKBA & SAF

#14 milq

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,226 posts
  • Joined: 09-March 09

Posted 17 June 2013 - 02:50 PM

Let me start by saying NICE holster!!!

I'm sure the "partially covered" is in there so if you reach up to get something on a high shelf and your cover garment doesn't work.... Then "flip out at the sight of a firearm" citizen can't get you arrested.

I'd guess that a holster covering more than 50% of the gun passing muster would require more legal defense than I can afford. I agree that the wording is a bit murky though but I'm also glad it's in there.
Good night Chesty, wherever you are.

Visit my Illinois RTC/Pro 2A blog: Steel on Target

#15 ChadN.

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 925 posts
  • Joined: 03-January 12

Posted 17 June 2013 - 03:41 PM

Does this mean in a holster on my hip and you can only see the grip? Attached is a pic of my elephant skin holster, elephant Luchesse boots, E-series 1911 and matching S&W belt buckle. I find this the most comfortable way to carry a full size side arm (legal to carry here in TN). Do you think this counts as Partially Concealed??


I'd go with intent of the law, instead of the actual wording...just in case.

Please note that all my comments in this thread are only my own opinion, and do not in any way represent IC, or anyone else's opinions. I am NOT a lawyer.
 

Selling your firearm?
ISP Approval Phone #: 1-217-524-3847

ISP Approval Website: https://www.isp.stat...oid/foidp2p.cfm


#16 vactor

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 251 posts
  • Joined: 15-April 08

Posted 17 June 2013 - 07:37 PM

and this is EXACTLY one of the reasons i for one do not like the bill, and was one of the many questions i asked about it. leaving it up to the discretion of the LEO, SAO or Judge means that you will be taking a risk before you know what the law ACTUALLY says. if you can carry a concealed firearm, why not be allowed to carry openly? plainclothes police do it ALL the time and never really seem to have an issue, even if their 'star' isn't blatantly showing. if i have a license to exercise my 2nd right (which, btw, says NOTHING about concealed) then why can i not do it uncocealed? and that definition is worthless from a practical standpoint.
Forty Two

#17 belercous

    Member

  • Banned
  • 1,492 posts
  • Joined: 17-March 11

Posted 17 June 2013 - 07:57 PM

1. Get a GOOD lawyer
2. Try it.
3. Let us know how it works out.


Yep. This is what lawyers call a "jury" question.

#18 bob

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,151 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 05

Posted 17 June 2013 - 08:03 PM


1. Get a GOOD lawyer
2. Try it.
3. Let us know how it works out.


Yep. This is what lawyers call a "jury" question.


It would seem to be a matter of law rather than of fact which would put it in the judge's hands.

I would bet every judge in Cook County knows exactly what the answer is already "guilty".
bob

Disclaimers: I am not a lawyer, cop, soldier, gunsmith, politician, plumber, electrician, or a professional practitioner of many of the other things I comment on in this forum.

The opinions expressed by this poster do not reflect the official stance of Illinois Carry. Apparently there was some confusion on the part of at least one person that it does, and I want to make things clear that my opinion is my own and that whatever the official stance of IC is or is not at present, it may or may not reflect my own opinion.

http://ilbob.blogspot.com/

#19 belercous

    Member

  • Banned
  • 1,492 posts
  • Joined: 17-March 11

Posted 17 June 2013 - 08:30 PM

Unless a term is defined by law or regulation it's definition will be what a reasonable, prudent person believes it to be. This would be a matter of fact & is up to the "fact-finder" (jury) to determine. E.g.; "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is something no judge will tell a jury the defintion of, the jury is presumed to be reasonable so they must decide what a reasonable doubt is.

If a term is defined by law, then it would be a question of law and not of fact. Often, terms are purposely left undefined by a legislature so the law can be flexible in unforeseen circumstances, or so the legislature can arrive at a consensus to pass a bill. The Const. is loaded with purposely vague words/phrases; it never would have been adopted otherwise.

#20 BadWaterBill

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,509 posts
  • Joined: 03-May 08

Posted 17 June 2013 - 08:53 PM

From an old mans point of view

It was put in there so you could not get BUSTED for simply PRINTING.

Till more folks get comfortable with you and me HIDING our firearm of choice under a shirt or coat this is a step in the right direction.

Do I like HIDDEN? NO but I have waited for half a century to get this far so what is another 2-4 years to O C?

Patience Grasshopper.

#21 Bud

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,861 posts
  • Joined: 06-August 09

Posted 17 June 2013 - 09:11 PM

1. a classic gun
2. an incredibly beautiful (and functional) holster and
3. matching boots and
4. topped off with a classic belt buckle equals:

The first official Illinois Carry barbeque gun ensemble!

Edited by Bud, 17 June 2013 - 09:11 PM.

Bud

 

 

Dico Tibi Verum, Libertas Optima Rerum Nunquam Servili Sub Nexu Vivito, Fili.



ITWT Club Member 001

ONE STATE- ONE LAW


#22 TkoKid

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 218 posts
  • Joined: 06-March 13

Posted 17 June 2013 - 10:21 PM

Here's my question... Hypothetical... The gun is out of sight when in the holster (OTW holster) all but the grip. The grip is covered by a shirt but the holster sticks out the bottom of the shirt in clear view. Is this still considered concealed or is the holster considered part of the gun and needs to also be concealed? I know the intent is to not draw unneeded alarm to the public but I see it as showing that i am carrying is a deterrent from being attacked in the first place.

#23 Mr. Fife

    Nip it

  • Members
  • 7,421 posts
  • Joined: 03-July 10

Posted 17 June 2013 - 10:29 PM

Even without a holster 50% of your gun is already hidden from view, unless there are mirrors involved.

Illinois Concealed Carry Firearms Instructor
Utah Concealed Carry Firearms Instructor
NRA Basic Pistol Instructor
NRA Range Safety Officer
Have all boated who fish? Have all boated who fish?


#24 Dr. G

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 197 posts
  • Joined: 09-April 08

Posted 17 June 2013 - 10:35 PM

As others have said, I think the clause was put there so if someone accidently sees your gun, they can freak out all they want but they can't have you arrested. Some people seem to forget that the deterrent effect of concealed carry is "concealment", i.e., no one knows who is carrying and who is not. The national statisticts that I have seen say nationwide, about 10% of the states population applies for a license, about 5% carry on an occasional basis, and only 3% caerry on a daily basis. That's only 3 out of 100 people. The problem for the bad guys is that they don't know which three, are carrying. The fact that anyone could be carrying is what gives them their moment of pause.

The problem with open carry is you give up the advantage of surprise. The bad guys would certainly alter their plans and strategy if they knew they were going up against armed opponents. The typical bad guy response is summery execution! In some cases they would be emboldened to attack if someone who they deemed to be a punk, chump, nerd, weakling, etc. were openly carrying a gun.

In my humble opinion, too many people want to make a gun an extension of their egos, instead of one in a series of tools, used to solve life threatening problems, in a highly unlikely, improbable set of circumstances. If one's skills arn't better than their looks, matching holster, boots and belt buckle won't mean very much.
Nobody ever wished they had a smaller gun, with fewer bullets, in a gunfight.... Author unknown.

#25 Dr. G

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 197 posts
  • Joined: 09-April 08

Posted 17 June 2013 - 10:56 PM

As others have said, I think the clause was put there so if someone accidently sees your gun, they can freak out all they want, but they can't have you arrested. Some people seem to forget that the deterrent effect of concealed carry is "concealment", i.e., no one knows who is carrying, and who is not. The national statisticts that I have seen say nationwide, about 10% of the states population applies for a license, about 5% carry on an occasional basis, and only 3% carry on a daily basis. That's only 3 out of 100 people. The problem for the bad guys is that they don't know which three, are carrying. The fact that anyone could be carrying is what gives them their moment of pause.

The problem with open carry is you give up the advantage of surprise. The bad guys would certainly alter their plans and strategy if they knew they were going up against armed opponents. The typical bad guy response is summery execution, i.e., shoot the armed person first, and then do whatever else needs to be done.! In some cases they would be emboldened to attack if someone who they deemed to be a punk, chump, nerd, weakling, old, cripple, etc. were openly carrying a gun.

Some people seem to prefer psudo- concealed carry, meaning that they are pretending that it is concealed when they know damn well that it is showing. They want it to be seen. Its an extension of their ego. This is a common behavior I see among certain arrogant cops who are off duty. Its tantamount to a neon sigh that says, "yeah, I'm packing and if you think you are bad, come get some". Personally, I'd rather be invisable!

In my humble opinion, too many people want to make a gun an extension of their egos, instead of one in a series of tools, used to solve life threatening problems, in a highly unlikely, improbable set of circumstances. If one's skills arn't better than their looks, matching holster, boots and belt buckle won't mean very much.
Nobody ever wished they had a smaller gun, with fewer bullets, in a gunfight.... Author unknown.

#26 belercous

    Member

  • Banned
  • 1,492 posts
  • Joined: 17-March 11

Posted 17 June 2013 - 10:56 PM

Tko: I'd say a reasonable person would consider the gun to be concealed, or mostly concealed. Again, this is a question for the finder of fact to decide. An anti-gun jury could determine that you are in violation of the law. A reasonable person could decide that a gun which "prints" is in violation of the law since obviously someone knew you were carrying. A reasonable person might consider that "mostly concealed" only would apply if the wearer made some move where the wearer's body was controrted in such a way that the gun only "printed" in that contorted position. If the gun "prints" during normal carry, a reasonable person could find that the wearer is in violation of the law. This is an extreme example to be sure, but again, this would be a "jury question." Judges are very hesitant to overrule a jury on a question of fact, but have been known to do so when the jury really messes up & gets it wrong. It happens, but it's rare.

Personally, I'd open carry if the option was available, it's so much easier & I'm not concerned about a bad guy taking me out 1st as I'm pretty cognizant of my surroundings. I'd imagine most bad guys wouldn't want the extra hassle of taking out me 1st cuz that would ruin their element of surprise & they wouldn't know who else is carrying but concealed. I'd take my chances.

#27 Tim4k5

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 208 posts
  • Joined: 02-January 13

Posted 17 June 2013 - 11:26 PM

Beautiful holster. Is that a Biancheri?