Joe Six Gun Posted November 2, 2016 at 01:58 AM Share Posted November 2, 2016 at 01:58 AM Hello, Newbie here, I've had an Illinois CC permit for a couple of years. I've read the law and it seems to me that a full cover holster (such as militaries used to issue) would be permitted. Even hanging on my hip and not covered, if the flap covers my pistol & no part of the gun is exposed, shouldn't that be legal? I don't know & don't want to wind up getting convicted of a crime if this violates the law. Does anybody know about this type of situation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydawg13 Posted November 2, 2016 at 02:03 AM Share Posted November 2, 2016 at 02:03 AM I think if it looks like you're carrying a gun it's not concealed so I would say no that it is not legal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kster Posted November 2, 2016 at 02:05 AM Share Posted November 2, 2016 at 02:05 AM the language of the law says partly or fully concealed. not covered. if I were a prosecutor, I would argue that a reasonable person would still see you have a gun, so it is not concealed. whether I win the case would be on my skill and the judge and jury. however a sneaky pete holster, it would be very hard to argue that it would be reasonable to see you have a gun since it looks like a phone holster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tkroenlein Posted November 2, 2016 at 03:08 AM Share Posted November 2, 2016 at 03:08 AM The Sneaky Pete, which is squared off on the bottom, is generally assumed to be a legal way to meet the concealed language in the statute. However, the more gun shaped flap style holster the OP described is generally assumed not to be a legal means to meet the concealed language in the statute. It follows then that one must have a square or rectangle shaped holster to be compliant with the law. Oh wait, actual logic doesn't apply here. I think the belief here is that if the general public (whoever that is) doesn't perceive that there is a firearm being carried, even though the holster is in plain sight, that still constitutes a concealed handgun. Where the more gun shaped holster could allow the general public to perceive there is a handgun being carried, even though there is not one iota of functional difference. Make sense? No. No it does not. But you'll have that when onerous restrictions are piled on the free exercise of Rights. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quackersmacker Posted November 2, 2016 at 03:17 AM Share Posted November 2, 2016 at 03:17 AM If it's totally exposed and obviously looks like like a gun holster you're gonna be dead meat. I think this is in the category of "Duh." Try it though, see how you do. You're not gonna do it though....are you? See what I mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Six Gun Posted November 2, 2016 at 03:26 AM Author Share Posted November 2, 2016 at 03:26 AM The holster is not pistol-shaped. It's a symmetrical trapezoid, as issued for a CZ-82. It could be a tool pouch for all anyone knows. The weapon is not only fully concealed, but the holster doesn't obviously appear to hold a gun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quackersmacker Posted November 2, 2016 at 03:30 AM Share Posted November 2, 2016 at 03:30 AM The holster is not pistol-shaped. It's a symmetrical trapezoid, as issued for a CZ-82. It could be a tool pouch for all anyone knows. The weapon is not only fully concealed, but the holster doesn't obviously appear to hold a gun. I think OP was talking about a holster that looks like a holster, he even referred to the military look.............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tkroenlein Posted November 2, 2016 at 03:30 AM Share Posted November 2, 2016 at 03:30 AM The holster is not pistol-shaped. It's a symmetrical trapezoid, as issued for a CZ-82. It could be a tool pouch for all anyone knows. The weapon is not only fully concealed, but the holster doesn't obviously appear to hold a gun. Sounds like a roll of the dice to me. It's all about what someone else thinks they see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craigcelia Posted November 2, 2016 at 03:33 AM Share Posted November 2, 2016 at 03:33 AM Perception is reality. I wouldn't want to be the test case. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spec5 Posted November 2, 2016 at 03:45 AM Share Posted November 2, 2016 at 03:45 AM With all the types of holsters available for concealed carry that are available why would you choose one that says I've got a gun in here. A concealed carry badge or a sash comes to mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wtr100 Posted November 2, 2016 at 03:56 AM Share Posted November 2, 2016 at 03:56 AM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wtr100 Posted November 2, 2016 at 03:57 AM Share Posted November 2, 2016 at 03:57 AM The holster is not pistol-shaped. It's a symmetrical trapezoid, as issued for a CZ-82. It could be a tool pouch for all anyone knows. The weapon is not only fully concealed, but the holster doesn't obviously appear to hold a gun. if'n uh person wuld luk at yuh ayn says to hiss own self, 'Selfe that there feller might could be pak'n hisself a pistola' then it ain't concealed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tvandermyde Posted November 2, 2016 at 04:21 AM Share Posted November 2, 2016 at 04:21 AM NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gangrel Posted November 2, 2016 at 11:22 AM Share Posted November 2, 2016 at 11:22 AM The holster is not pistol-shaped. It's a symmetrical trapezoid, as issued for a CZ-82. It could be a tool pouch for all anyone knows. The weapon is not only fully concealed, but the holster doesn't obviously appear to hold a gun. I think OP was talking about a holster that looks like a holster, he even referred to the military look.............. You were responding to a follow-up from the OP. just sayin'... Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockman Posted November 2, 2016 at 12:13 PM Share Posted November 2, 2016 at 12:13 PM If the container completely enclosed the firearm and has some form of clasp, button, zipper, clip, Velcro or other fastener it meets the definition legal for transport. If such container is a holster in addition, it would make no difference. If you have an FCCL, you can carry a loaded handgun in a gun case. The answer is yes. Prior to the FCCA you would be charged with carrying a concealed weapon. The answer to the OP's question is yes. This question like many on this forum are answered clearly by the text of the law. The authorities in this state will never concede the law does not prohibit it so expect the ride. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomKoz Posted November 2, 2016 at 03:23 PM Share Posted November 2, 2016 at 03:23 PM NO^^ from you the guy that helped write the law. Good enough for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hazborgufen Posted November 2, 2016 at 05:06 PM Share Posted November 2, 2016 at 05:06 PM NO Most of the time, I'm up for playing the hypothetical scenario game and parsing the black letter text of the law. But when Todd comes in and lays the smack down like this I'm more than happy to accept that as the answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka Posted November 2, 2016 at 09:34 PM Share Posted November 2, 2016 at 09:34 PM I would be very very careful. Unless you are willing to be a test case (in which case you my admiration and thanks) I would not even think of using a holster that is remotely shaped like a gun openly. That would not be considered concealed, I checked with a LEO friend and his reaction was not good. Sneaky Pete might be OK. I personally prefer to keep it canceled fully. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tvandermyde Posted November 2, 2016 at 09:35 PM Share Posted November 2, 2016 at 09:35 PM the caveat is that a container is not a holster. My comment is for a flap type holster -- an item that is attached to a belt and designed to carry a firearm. Don't read more into those words. a fanny pack is a fanny pack and purse is a purse. they maybe used for other tasks, they may even be designed to carry a firearm, but that is not their sole or primary purpose. If people spent 1/2 the time working campaigns that they spend on this stuff I would have a lot less gray hair Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WARFACE Posted November 2, 2016 at 10:34 PM Share Posted November 2, 2016 at 10:34 PM the caveat is that a container is not a holster. My comment is for a flap type holster -- an item that is attached to a belt and designed to carry a firearm. Don't read more into those words. a fanny pack is a fanny pack and purse is a purse. they maybe used for other tasks, they may even be designed to carry a firearm, but that is not their sole or primary purpose. If people spent 1/2 the time working campaigns that they spend on this stuff I would have a lot less gray hairHow can we expect people to work for a campaign when they can't even bother to show up for a 2A counter-protest or I-GOLD..and they're fun! Far too many people take their 2A Rights for granted and enjoy them off the backs of other people. Hey everybody...what caliber should I carry? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockman Posted November 3, 2016 at 12:27 AM Share Posted November 3, 2016 at 12:27 AM the caveat is that a container is not a holster. My comment is for a flap type holster -- an item that is attached to a belt and designed to carry a firearm.Don't read more into those words. a fanny pack is a fanny pack and purse is a purse. they maybe used for other tasks, they may even be designed to carry a firearm, but that is not their sole or primary purpose.If people spent 1/2 the time working campaigns that they spend on this stuff I would have a lot less gray hair Then the Sneaky Pete holster would be in the NO category. It is a Fully exposed holster specifically designed to carry firearm. I see nothing written in law to differentiate on from the other. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauserme Posted November 3, 2016 at 01:32 AM Share Posted November 3, 2016 at 01:32 AM It's the difference between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. The spirit of the law is to hide from the general public the fact that you're armed. A Sneaky Pete does that. The farther your actions are from the spirit of the law the more likely it is you'll have to argue the letter of the law. Some people are more willing to do that than others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockman Posted November 3, 2016 at 01:49 AM Share Posted November 3, 2016 at 01:49 AM It's the difference between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. The spirit of the law is to hide from the general public the fact that you're armed. A Sneaky Pete does that.The farther your actions are from the spirit of the law the more likely it is you'll have to argue the letter of the law. Some people are more willing to do that than others. The blame lies squarely on the legislature for not drafting laws where the spirit and textual content are in unison. So how do you understand the spirit of the law if it is not what the text says? Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quackersmacker Posted November 3, 2016 at 02:03 AM Share Posted November 3, 2016 at 02:03 AM It's the difference between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. The spirit of the law is to hide from the general public the fact that you're armed. A Sneaky Pete does that. The farther your actions are from the spirit of the law the more likely it is you'll have to argue the letter of the law. Some people are more willing to do that than others.Extremely well said!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geomick Posted November 3, 2016 at 02:07 AM Share Posted November 3, 2016 at 02:07 AM Here is a picture of a vz 82 with the original military holster that the OP is talking about - http://www.onwisconsinoutdoors.com/Content/files/Firearms/Vz-82-with-Accessories.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tkroenlein Posted November 3, 2016 at 02:15 AM Share Posted November 3, 2016 at 02:15 AM Here is a picture of a vz 82 with the original military holster that the OP is talking about - I'd put a big gold SP on that and carry it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauserme Posted November 3, 2016 at 02:19 AM Share Posted November 3, 2016 at 02:19 AM The blame lies squarely on the legislature for not drafting laws where the spirit and textual content are in unison. So how do you understand the spirit of the law if it is not what the text says? I know its frustrating, but it's better than some of the alternatives. A little ambiguity, like "concealed or mostly concealed" gives us a law that's more easily complied with even if it complicates the discussion. Think in terms of how much easier it is to choose a container to transport a firearm under existing law, compared to how difficult that would be if the legislature had tried to define an acceptable container. Here is a picture of a vz 82 with the original military holster that the OP is talking about - http://www.onwisconsinoutdoors.com/Content/files/Firearms/Vz-82-with-Accessories.jpg Everyone has to make their own decisions. Honestly, with all the man bags and such these days, that doesn't scream "gun" to me like a P38 holster would, but obviously ,more than an IWB holster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MauserMan Posted November 3, 2016 at 03:56 AM Share Posted November 3, 2016 at 03:56 AM the caveat is that a container is not a holster. My comment is for a flap type holster -- an item that is attached to a belt and designed to carry a firearm. Don't read more into those words. a fanny pack is a fanny pack and purse is a purse. they maybe used for other tasks, they may even be designed to carry a firearm, but that is not their sole or primary purpose. If people spent 1/2 the time working campaigns that they spend on this stuff I would have a lot less gray hairI have a fanny pack which is designed as and sold with the primary purpose to encase a gun. It can hold wallet and keys, as well, but carrying a gun is its primary purpose, Methinks this qualifies as a legal transport case. (Tommy's Gun Pack) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flingarrows Posted November 3, 2016 at 11:39 AM Share Posted November 3, 2016 at 11:39 AM The blame lies squarely on the legislature for not drafting laws where the spirit and textual content are in unison. So how do you understand the spirit of the law if it is not what the text says? I know its frustrating, but it's better than some of the alternatives. A little ambiguity, like "concealed or mostly concealed" gives us a law that's more easily complied with even if it complicates the discussion. Think in terms of how much easier it is to choose a container to transport a firearm under existing law, compared to how difficult that would be if the legislature had tried to define an acceptable container. Here is a picture of a vz 82 with the original military holster that the OP is talking about - e their own decisions. Honestly, with all the man bags and such these days, that doesn't scream "gun" to me like a P38 holster would, but obviously ,more than an IWB holster. man purse --> Murse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WARFACE Posted November 3, 2016 at 11:51 AM Share Posted November 3, 2016 at 11:51 AM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.