"busted" for Open Carry at work

[chadwickMS]

Thought I'd share, for sh*ts and giggles:
Yesterday at work, I came back to the office after showing a house (real estate agent), when I was carrying in by blackhawk CQC serpa holster on my belt, underneath my light jacket. After I came back in and took my jacket off at my desk, I walked up to the front to turn the key back in to the secretary, and she nearly had a heart attack seeing my gun "out in the open like that!" As soon as she recovered, she said "cover that thing up!" I asked "why, it's perfectly legal" (in MS, of course, can carry in your place of business any way you want to), and she said "people around here just aren't used to seeing people other than cops with guns like that!" Of course, in my book the more they get used to seeing it the better, right?!
I'm slowly winning her over from the DARK SIDE, and she is getting more and more accepting of me being a GUN NUT
I'm fortunate to work at a place where not only is carry permitted, it's encouraged! My boss took the CHP class with me and applied at the same time
Any thoughts on how to explain to her WHY it's OK for "civilians" to Open Carry?

 

[LouisianaCarry]

 

[chadwickMS]

hahah, ok maybe I'm just slow but...I laughed my ass off but don't get it...

 

[LouisianaCarry]

That's like telling people that you think 17 rounds of 9mm is just so obviously better than 13 rounds of .45.

I just thought I would be a nice host and have something to munch on for the coming participants, in case they get hungry.

BTW, I carry open 90% of the time in Shreveport. LSP972 has called me a liar outright for claiming this, but I just don't have any trouble.


From my web site:

Louisiana Carry Mission Statement


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Louisiana Carry has several goals. We seek to:

Promulgate and promote needed changes to Louisiana law as it relates to the rights of the citizenry to keep and bear arms.
Provide and foster an online community environment for all weapons and civil-rights enthusiasts in Louisiana.
Maintain an email alert network for individuals concerned about their gun rights.
Raise awareness of the positive aspects of- and need for- weapons ownership, for defense of people, property and State.
Raise awareness of our legal right to openly carry weapons and our prerogative as Louisiana citizens to obtain Concealed Handgun Permits.
Educate the public in regards to their actual legal rights and responsibilities under current law.
Positively impact the revenue of establishments in Louisiana that support our right to keep and bear arms.
Negatively impact the revenue of establishments in Louisiana that disparage our right to keep and bear arms.
Raise awareness of current events as they pertain to weapons ownership.
Raise the consciousness of the Citizenry in relation to the importance of liberty in all walks of life.

We plan to continue working to accomplish these goals as far into the future as we are able, and pray for God's guidance and grace in order for these goals to be realized.

 

[chadwickMS]

ahhhh, gotcha. It upsets/annoys/angers (depending on which day of the week it is) me that our estemeed state supreme court says a gun in a holster, even if OWB and plainly visible is "partially concealed..." and thus requires a CHP. :/

 

[LouisianaCarry]

Luckily, our case law runs the other direction, the prosecutor must show a distinct intent to conceal here, being holstered notwithstanding.

This is State v. Fluker 311 So. 2d 863, a 1975 cases which discusses the determination of concealment as stated in State v. Bias.

ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION AND MANDAMUS TO THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE PARISH OF CADDO, HONORABLE C. J. BOLIN, JR., JUDGE.


COUNSEL:
Donald L. Baker, Skeels, Baker & Coleman, Shreveport, for Defendant-Relator.
William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen. Barbara Rutledge Asst. Atty. Gen., John A. Richardson, Dist. Atty., Dan J. Grady, III, Asst. Dist. Atty., for Plaintiff-Respondent.

JUDGES:
Marcus, Justice.

OPINION BY:
MARCUS

OPINION:
Defendant James C. Fluker was charged by bill of information with the intentional concealment of a.38 calibre pistol in violation of La. R.S. 14:95. He was tried by a judge without a jury, found guilty as charged, and sentenced to pay a fine of $100.00 and costs or, in default, to serve fifteen (15) days in jail. Lacking appellate jurisdiction over the matter, n1 we granted defendant's application for a writ of certiorari to review his conviction. 305 So. 2d 128 (La. 1974).

At the time of defendant's trial in 1974, this court possessed appellate jurisdiction in criminal cases only where the fine exceeding $300.00 or a sentence exceeding six (6) months had actually been imposed. La. Const, art. 7, § 10 (1921). The new constitution raises the monetary jurisdictional amount to $500.00. La, Const, art. V, § 5(D) (1974).

Defendant assigns two errors allegedly committed by the trial court as grounds for reversal of his conviction and sentence. Since both assigned errors present an identical issue of law, viz., whether a partially visible weapon is a "concealed" weapon under our criminal laws, they will be considered together.

The testimony given at trial and findings of the trial judge are easily summarized. Pursuant to a complaint from a passing motorist who had observed defendant driving in an erratic manner one evening, a Shreveport police officer stopped defendant on suspicion of drunken driving and asked him to get out of his car. As was his custom when carrying the day's business receipts, defendant was armed with a small pistol. Another police officer happened by and stopped to offer assistance. Approaching from defendant's rear, he noticed a small, brown holster housing the pistol attached to defendant's belt on his right hip. Defendant wore no outer clothing, such as a coat or jacket, that otherwise hid the holster and gun from view. It was admitted that enough of the gun protruded from the holster to make it recognizable as a pistol. The officers disarmed defendant and arrested him on the charge for which he was eventually prosecuted.

In written reasons for judgment, the trial judge found that the position of the holster and gun on defendant's right hip effectively obscured it from the first officer's view. He then concluded that considering the time of night, the size of the weapon and the dark color of it and its scabbard, and its appearance in the pictures in evidence, it is apparent that this weapon was not in full open view, but was effectively concealed.


Finding the applicable rule on concealment of weapons to be that stated in State v. Bias, 37 La. Ann. 259 (1885), viz., that a partially concealed pistol is a "concealed" weapon within the meaning of the law, the trial judge found the defendant guilty as charged. For the reasons hereafter assigned, we reverse.

The gravamen of defendant's argument here is that the trial court committed reversible error in its interpretation and application of the concealed weapons law, La. R.S. 14:95(A)(1), as prohibiting any partial concealment of a weapon. More specifically, defendant assigns as error the trial court's refusals to grant defense motions for a directed verdict and a requested instruction that, in order to be "concealed" within the meaning of the law, an object must be fully hidden from view. Resolution of the legal issue presented here requires an historical exegesis of the concealed weapons law in Louisiana.

The first statute to proscribe concealment of weapons was enacted in 1813. Responding to the apparently increasing frequency of bloodshed in the state,the legislature proscribed the carrying of a concealed weapon in the following terms:


. . . any person who shall be found with any concealed weapon, such as a dirk, dagger, knife, pistol or any other deadly weapon concealed in his bosom, coat or in any other place about him that do not appear in full open view, any person so offending, shall on conviction thereof before any justice of the peace, be subject to pay a fine not to exceed fifty dollars nor less than twenty dollars. . . .



La. Acts 1813, p. 172, § 1 (emphasis added). In 1855, the statute was reenacted to proscribe the carrying of ". . . a weapon or weapons concealed on or about [one's] person. . . ." La. Acts 1855, No. 120, § 115. Although the 1855 statute did not include the language of the 1813 act that required the weapon to be in full open view, this court interpreted the later statute as carrying forward that requirement. State v. Smith, 11 La. Ann. 633 (1856); see also State v. Bias, 37 La. Ann. 259 (1885). Later amendments simply graded the offense and altered the penalty for conviction; the statutory formula to determine what constituted concealment was left unaltered. La. Acts 1906, No. 43; La. Acts 1902, No. 107.

The preamble to the statute reads:
Whereas assassination and attempt to commit the same, have of late been of such frequent occurrence as to become a subject of serious alarm to the peaceable and well disposed inhabitants of this state; and whereas the same is in a great measure to be attributed to the dangerous and wicked practice of carrying about in public places concealed and deadly weapons, or going to the same armed in an unnecessary manner. . . .


The present statute was originally enacted in 1942 and was enrolled as part of the Revised Statutes in 1950. See La. Acts 1942, No. 43, § 1, art. 95. Subsequent amendments have not related to the section in question here, which defines the crime of illegally carrying a weapon as, inter alia, the intentional concealment of any firearm, or other instrumentality customarily used or intended for probable use as a dangerous weapon, on one's person. . . .



La. R.S. 14:95(A)(1) (1950), as amended, La. Acts 1968, No. 647, § 1.
Clearly, the present version of the statute differs from its predecessors by requiring intentional concealment. Thus, the old formula, which required that the weapon be carried in full open view, is obsolete. By making the offense of concealment a crime of specific intent, the legislature has abandoned the old rule that a partially hidden weapon is a concealed weapon in favor of a more realistic proscription that contemplates that a weapon, although not in "full, open view," is nonetheless not a "concealed" weapon if it is sufficiently exposed to reveal its identity. If the weapon is carried in a manner that reveals its identity, its carrier cannot be presumed to have intended to conceal it and, accordingly, is not in violation of the statute.

As one commentator has observed,

the problem is whether there has been an intentional concealment. If a part of the weapon is openly displayed, such open display is hardly consistent with an intent to conceal. If a part is subject to view, not through an intention for it to be openly displayed but merely by virtue of sloppy concealment, then it seems there may be intentional concealment even though there is not full concealment. These are jury questions and there ought not be any simplistic rule designed to govern both the rural outdoorsman and the city street roamer by so mechanistic a standard as that of whether the weapon was partially or fully concealed.


Ellis, The Work of the Louisiana Appellate Courts for the 1970-1971 Term, Criminal Law, 32 La. L. Rev. 298, 305-06 (1972) (emphasis in original).

In sum, the trial court erred in its application of the mechanistic standard that obtained under prior laws. The appropriate test to be applied in prosecutions for illegal carrying of weapons is whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case as disclosed by the evidence, the manner in which defendant carried the weapon evinced an intent to conceal its identity. Applying this interpretation of the statute to the facts of this case, we find no evidence of an intentional concealment of the weapon. Defendant wore the gun in a holster on his hip in open view. The gun was exposed, except for that portion in the holster. There was no attempt to conceal its identity. It was fully admitted by the arresting officers that the weapon was sufficiently exposed to be fully recognizable as a pistol. Hence, we find no evidence to substantiate this conviction. La. Code Crim. P. art. 778 (1966); see State v. Douglas, 278 So. 2d 485 (La. 1973). We conclude that the trial court erred as a matter of law in not granting defendant's motion for a directed verdict of acquittal.
DECREE
For the reasons assigned, defendant's conviction is reversed, and the sentence is annulled and set aside. The cause is remanded to the trial court for proper judgment of acquittal in compliance with this opinion.

 

[IonicDOG]

Sorry to hijack the thread, but I was thinking about this earlier. I'm 19 and carry my XD in the truck with me at all times, I want to open carry but i'm a little uneasy about doing so, due to the hassles and harassment that i've read about. So I pose a request, members if you don't mind post up the places that you've OC'd and what your experince was. LC I know you say that you OC but haven't really read any other members OC. Just my thoughts Josh

 

[LouisianaCarry]

Most people do not do it for tactical reasons, which I do not discount. You could argue this ad infinitum, but the one side usually says that a weapon is an effective deterrent for bad guys, and the other side says a weapon makes you the first target. Both sides have merit- it just depends on the bad guy. I say that I am better off with a gun than without one, at least.

99% of the time, both are phantom menaces. 90% of the time, people don't even notice- depending on your environment, how you carry yourself, etc. I have said here before that I could walk around with a toad taped to the fly of my pants and most people would not notice- they are just too self-absorbed. The three exceptions to this are:

1. people with good situational awareness (hopefully, that describes everyone on this board)
2. LEOs
3. predators actively seeking prey

It is with the last two categories that we are most concerned. As far as the LEOs go, there are many in LA that will screw you if given the chance. A member here was arrested recently for open carrying- the cops lied and said he was carrying concealed. There was a man blatantly illegally arrested for open carrying at a Tangier (sp?) Outlet, last I heard, he was suing the department for that arrest. The cops actually said, "We don't care what the law or the Supreme Court says, we are not going to let people walk around carrying a gun on their hip." So, know the mood of your locale before making a decision. Also, it never hurts to have a lawyer and be willing to take that trip downtown, should it come to that.

Lastly, we have bad guys. I do not dispute that the element of surprise is a tactical advantage, and that can be lost if you are open carrying. However, unfortunately, our great State does not make concealed carry an option for someone of your age. If I were you, I would still want the most effective means of protection at my disposal, and that would seem to be a sidearm, albeit an openly carried one. As long as you do not go to a prohibited location (mostly alcoholic beverage outlets, public buildings, and schools), you are good to go, as far as the actual written law is concerned. However, it is the nuances of the law that trip you up. An example of the nuances of the law would be the fact that you might be falsely arrested. You should be able to beat it, but may not be able to sustain your other commitments while doing so. It is certainly a decision not to enter into without due consideration.

As I said. I OC every day. The only time I conceal, for the most part, is when I am going somewhere where I may screw it up for the next guy by open carrying. Just as a random example, I conceal at places like Lowe's and Best Buy, because if I were to open carry, the libtard managers might put up a sign that says no weapons allowed, period, and that would put my fellow gun owners in a bind when they shop there with their CCWs. I do not want to hurt them. I make that decision on a store-by-store basis. Other than that, though, I OC in front of cops, Sheriff's deputies, the general public, etc., and never have trouble. Of course, I do not look like a thug, so that helps. Also, I do not live in a rabidly anti-gun area, politically, like New Orleans (nor would I live there). All these things are things to think about. I do know this, if I can't carry, I don't go (unless required, like the court house or OCS for my foster kids). If I were under 21, I would certainly be open carrying, but that is because it is personally worth the risks to ME- that is not the right decision for everyone.

To me, the benefit of open carrying is added comfort of not having a hot cover garment in 90 degree weather, and the ability to more frequently strike up conversations with other gun owners, and invite them to our nice range, or tell them about Louisiana Carry. I see those benefits regularly, I have yet to have a bad guy try to snatch my weapon. That could happen tomorrow, though. Training and situational awareness are key, as well as not hanging out in crack town at 3 am.

I personally have never experienced any trouble, besides having to argue with LSP972, your methods may vary.

 

[tunatuk]

I like this post. I carried openlyu before i was 21 with a revolver my dad gave me. it was a 38. when i turned 21 i bought a .45 and opened carried it...some peopel asked if i wa sthe police. i told them no. but it is legal in louisiana to opemn carry all you want except in the normal prohibitied places.

if this post does not make sense, it is because i am drunk. i had a work x-mas party, and went to a bar afterwards...sorry.

i'll edit in the morning

 

[LouisianaCarry]

I like this post. I carried openlyu before i was 21 with a revolver my dad gave me. it was a 38. when i turned 21 i bought a .45 and opened carried it...some peopel asked if i wa sthe police. i told them no. but it is legal in louisiana to opemn carry all you want except in the normal prohibitied places.

if this post does not make sense, it is because i am drunk. i had a work x-mas party, and went to a bar afterwards...sorry.

i'll edit in the morning

Figured that one out before being told.

 

[Manimal]

I Open Carry at:
Wal-Mart
Whole Foods(I had 1 officer approach me and tell me that he knows what I was doing was legal but if someone said anything to him he'd have to cite me for being a public nuisance. I do not think those charges would be upheld in court though technically a person may be charged with any thing at any time it seems.)
Pet Land
Target
Barnes & Noble
Mall of Louisiana
Comp-USA
Best Buy
CVS
Exxon
Game Stop
Game Ware

Maybe other places.

I havent been OCing like I'd like because its 'winter' and I want to wear a jacket sometimes and I am just unclear as to whether or not that would be considered 'concealed'.

 

[LouisianaCarry]

If it is not discernible to someone looking for it, you can be charged.

Winter?? Aren't you in LA? Sissy.

"Whole Foods(I had 1 officer approach me and tell me that he knows what I was doing was legal but if someone said anything to him he'd have to cite me for being a public nuisance. I do not think those charges would be upheld in court though technically a person may be charged with any thing at any time it seems.)"

That is the one I hear cited most often. It is, of course, BS. You cannot make something illegal that is Constitutionally protected, by circumventing the Legislature at your own whim. I am not aware of this ever actually happening, but you've got me thinking. I finally found a lawyer willing to do case law studies for me, I will ask him about this one, and see if he can dig anything up.

 

[Manimal]

Chad, it is also a Crime Deterrent...never forget to point that out to people.

LC, gimmie a break! lol...it gets into the 30's here sometimes Thank you for the clarification...I think, to be safe, when I want to OC in cold weather I'll just wear some thermals and regular dress.

Something I'd like to mention. When I was confronted at Whole Foods I was with 2 other gentlemen who were not carrying, and they were not dressed well either.(One is a state employee, the other is a Postman & Marine) I think that their dress influenced the officers decision to confront me. (I continued walking out of the store, after checking out, while the officer spoke to me. I did not stop to talk and he did not ask me to. As I exited the store he pointed at my Marine friend who was dressed in rags basically and said 'do you feel safer with him having that thing?'...the Marine laughed and did not say a word, lol.)

I think it is important that people represent gun owners, and enthusiasts, in a positive light.

I normally dress fairly well, but when I OC I make it a point to dress nicely and to represent myself in the most respectable manner possible. I want to represent myself and the Constitution of the United States AND Louisiana well.

I suggest that anyone who OC's does the same.

 

[Forrest]

I wish I saw people OCing here every day, unfortunately I've only met a couple. The state troopers that gave our CCW class called it "generally unlawful" and I knew it was pointless to argue with them - I knew where they stood.

If I was in your shoes, I'd weigh the risk and consequences of getting caught carrying concealed "illegally" (I do not believe the Louisiana Constitution has the legal power overrule the United States Consititution) against the risk and consequences of carrying openly or not carrying at all.

I believe you are in the moral right carrying in either circumstance so it is merely a matter of the odds and which position you want to place yourself in.

I sometimes regret that I was so eager to beg my permission from the government to carry concealed when I was younger, and get printed and photographed like a criminal, but since it's already done, I'll keep my permit, I suppose.

 

[Vermiform]

I have given alot of thought to OC and I don't think I would do it even if it was more widely accepted. Don't get me wrong, I think everyone has a right to OC and more power to them if they do.

My problem is with retention. LC said, it's all about "situational awareness" but I think it requires a bit more than that. I think OC requires more than Jeff Coopers Condition Yellow but does not go into full blown Condition Orange. Basically, I would worry about it too much, like I would worry if I had to walk around with $5ooo pinned to my shirt. There are just too many people to keep up with in public and I am afraid I would miss that one Goblin standing in my blind spot eyeing my pistol.

Because of the work I have done for so long, even when I am out in public, very few people get by me without getting "scanned" and me seeing their eyes. However, I have still been suprised by "homeless" people who seem to have come "out of nowhere" to ask me for some change / a smoke / a light, etc. Open carrying a pistol in public would worry the hell out of me and I wouldn't enjoy myself. I am comfortable in Condition Yellow.

I still have a vast amount respect for those of you that do OC. Thanks for toeing the line for the rest of us.

 

[gunz4me]

The only concern that I have with open carry is that the element of surprise is taken away from a would be criminal thus increasing my concerns that I will end up with a bullet in the back of the head because the perp already knows that I am armed. With that said, I did open carry before getting my CHP.

 

[Forrest]

The only concern that I have with open carry is that the element of surprise is taken away from a would be criminal thus increasing my concerns that I will end up with a bullet in the back of the head because the perp already knows that I am armed. With that said, I did open carry before getting my CHP.

You're making some assumptions I don't believe are true.

1) Every criminal who might assault you would do so whether they knew you were armed or not.
2) Every mugger out there is a cold blooded murderer.

I think carrying openly would make it clearer you are not an easy target and would reduce the likelihood of anyone messing with you. I doubt that most of the scum out there go around looking for people to kill. More likely, they go around looking for people to rob and once they get scared they do stupid things and panic. They are cowards at heart and if there is a reason to look for easier prey they will jump on it. Who knows, they might think you're a cop or someone they're expecting to be armed.

 

[tunatuk]

There are 2 sides of the open carry/concealed carry debate. Both are quite valid. It is also a Ford/Chevy, Pepsi/Coke type of thing.

Yes, if a bank robber walks in and sees a guy with a gun, he may be deterred from robbing it. But if he really really wants to rob it, he will do it and he will want to kill you before anyone else.

Some criminals may be deterred by it, others may not, and they will want to try and eliminate any threat posed to them.

 

[Forrest]

Bank robber? I haven't even been inside a bank in the last 5 years. Do you honestly think you're going to be there during a bank robbery?

Now, I've used ATMs late at night quite often. I've also heard about a lot of people in BR getting mugged at gas stations. I can see those being realistic scenarios. And I seriously doubt someone would try and sneak up on me if they could see I was carrying. They'd just wait for the next person - why risk it when so many people are NOT armed?

Anyway, I never said OC was a better choice than CCW. I prefer to CCW just so I don't draw attention to myself. But saying OC is a worse choice because it makes you a target is ridiculous to me. If you actually examine what that means, it doesn't make sense.

 

[LouisianaCarry]

It does happen. Two-stage retention holsters are poular with LEOs partially because weapon grabs do happen. Do they happen often? No, but neither does the need for your gun happen often, statistically. All I am saying is that there are valid risk/security concerns.

What bugs me is that OCers don't go around bashing CCWers, but CCWers (not all) do go around bashing OCers. Why can't we just respect each other's choices?