[geerhed]

Hopefully this is not inappropriate for this particular forum, but...

I realize Utah issues a permit for "concealed firearms" only. However, I'm looking to carry a general-purpose knife also. I don't want to get pinched for having a "concealed weapon" when I'm carrying a perfectly legal "concealed firearm." Seems kind of silly.

Point being, at what point is the item actually concealed? (I'm thinking of the clip attached to the pocket here.)

Given,

76-10-501...(2) (a) "Concealed dangerous weapon" means a dangerous weapon that is covered, hidden, or secreted in a manner that the public would not be aware of its presence and is readily accessible for immediate use.

One could make the same argument for those IWB holsters using a large external clip on the belt. My Milt Sparks has two straps holding it to my belt. If my shirt is tucked in, is it open carry? An M4 AR15 is slung forward on my shoulder. My coat is on, but 15" of barrel stick out the bottom. Concealed? Not by this statute. Some people like great big fantasy swords. Taking it to a show, pommel protrudes from the dufflebag. Citation for concealed weapon?

I feel I'm pushing a semantic letter of the law, but hey, bad guys do too.

"IANAL" replies also welcome. 8)

 

[divegeek]

I realize Utah issues a permit for "concealed firearms" only. However, I'm looking to carry a general-purpose knife also. I don't want to get pinched for having a "concealed weapon" when I'm carrying a perfectly legal "concealed firearm." Seems kind of silly.

Although the name of the permit is "Concealed Firearm Permit", it also exempts you from the restrictions on concealing other "dangerous weapons".

Paragraph (2) of 76-10-523 says that CFP holders are exempt from 76-10-504 (1)(a), which is the statute that prohibits concealed carry of dangerous weapons that are not firearms. IANAL, but it seems very clear to me that you don't have to worry about carrying a knife if you have a CFP.

The more general question of "what does concealed mean?" is tougher, and somewhat subjective. You quoted the law, and I don't know if there's case law that clarifies it further.

 

[divegeek]

Something else I noticed while looking through the law: The language of 76-10-530, which prohibits carrying in churches and private residences whose owners have given notice that weapons are not allowed, ONLY addresses firearms. It does not mention "dangerous weapons", just "firearms".

It appears to me, therefore, that the CFP does give you permission to carry concealed non-firearm dangerous weapons in churches and private residences, even if they ask you not to. Of course you can still be asked to leave if they realize you're carrying a knife or whatever, and refusal to comply may net you a trespassing charge.

As a matter of politeness, I might prefer to comply with a request not to carry a weapon, but it appears there's no force of law behind it, not even an infraction (carrying a firearm into a church or residence that has given notice is an infraction).

[Edited to clarify a little]

 

[geerhed]

Found this:
http://www.utahconcealedcarry.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1001

 

[UTOC-45-44]

Hopefully this is not inappropriate for this particular forum, but...

I realize Utah issues a permit for "concealed firearms" only. However, I'm looking to carry a general-purpose knife also. I don't want to get pinched for having a "concealed weapon" when I'm carrying a perfectly legal "concealed firearm." Seems kind of silly.

Point being, at what point is the item actually concealed? (I'm thinking of the clip attached to the pocket here.)

Given,

76-10-501...(2) (a) "Concealed dangerous weapon" means a dangerous weapon that is covered, hidden, or secreted in a manner that the public would not be aware of its presence and is readily accessible for immediate use.

One could make the same argument for those IWB holsters using a large external clip on the belt. My Milt Sparks has two straps holding it to my belt. If my shirt is tucked in, is it open carry? An M4 AR15 is slung forward on my shoulder. My coat is on, but 15" of barrel stick out the bottom. Concealed? Not by this statute. Some people like great big fantasy swords. Taking it to a show, pommel protrudes from the dufflebag. Citation for concealed weapon?

I feel I'm pushing a semantic letter of the law, but hey, bad guys do too.

"IANAL" replies also welcome. 8)

Here in Utah the CCW also allows for knives or any other "weapon" to be concealed. It's not a Concealed Firearms Permit ONLY.

In the State of Utah we don't have any definitons of completely Vs. partially covered when it comes to CCW. The same is for Open Carry, which is 100% legal. Inside IWB holsters are Open Carry when not having anything covering it and is 100% LEGAL once again.

TJ

 

[bane]

Extreme caution with respect to carrying a PARTIALLY COVERED firearm (such as using an IWB but having the top exposed) should be exercised, however.

My step-father was ON HIS OWN PROPERTY and had a revolver inside an OWB holster strapped to his belt. I don't want to go into the entire story here (I think I covered it in another thread a few months back), but let's just jump to the point where 2 overzealous LE arrived on his property in a confrontational way. His diabetes was acting up and led him to act unwisely, which led to his arrest.

One of his charges? CONCEALEMENT. Why? Because his shirt, it was ALLEGED, which was untucked, was PARTIALLY covering his firearm.

Ultimately, once he donned the same clothing and holster in court, it was dismissed because the court could not see how it was possible that his shirt was covering the firearm. However, he spent something like 60 days in jail for that little "error" in judgement on the part of the 2 LEO's.

(No disrespect to any other LEO's... they are all individuals, these 2 apparently were not on the up-and-up, but they are only 2)

 

[apollosmith]

Just to clarify a bit more, just because you have a concealed firearms permit there is no legal obligation to actually conceal it. In other words, you have no legal ramifications if your concealed weapon somehow (intentionally or not) becomes unconcealed. The only time concealment becomes an issue is if you do not have a permit, in which case the gun must be in the open and unloaded.

In short, carry open, carry concealed, carry 1/2 concealed - it doesn't really matter legally if you have a permit (which ya'll do, right?).

 

[xmirage2kx]

CCC (Casually Concealed Carry) :grinningjester:

 

[UTOC-45-44]

CCC (Casually Concealed Carry) :grinningjester:

:ROFL: :lolbang:

 

[UTOC-45-44]

Just to clarify a bit more, just because you have a concealed firearms permit there is no legal obligation to actually conceal it. In other words, you have no legal ramifications if your concealed weapon somehow (intentionally or not) becomes unconcealed. The only time concealment becomes an issue is if you do not have a permit, in which case the gun must be in the open and unloaded.

In short, carry open, carry concealed, carry 1/2 concealed - it doesn't really matter legally if you have a permit (which ya'll do, right?).

Agree 100%.

 

[UTOC-45-44]

Extreme caution with respect to carrying a PARTIALLY COVERED firearm (such as using an IWB but having the top exposed) should be exercised, however.

My step-father was ON HIS OWN PROPERTY and had a revolver inside an OWB holster strapped to his belt. I don't want to go into the entire story here (I think I covered it in another thread a few months back), but let's just jump to the point where 2 overzealous LE arrived on his property in a confrontational way. His diabetes was acting up and led him to act unwisely, which led to his arrest.

One of his charges? CONCEALEMENT. Why? Because his shirt, it was ALLEGED, which was untucked, was PARTIALLY covering his firearm.

Ultimately, once he donned the same clothing and holster in court, it was dismissed because the court could not see how it was possible that his shirt was covering the firearm. However, he spent something like 60 days in jail for that little "error" in judgement on the part of the 2 LEO's.

(No disrespect to any other LEO's... they are all individuals, these 2 apparently were not on the up-and-up, but they are only 2)

On your own property there IS no regulation on how to varry. Wether with or without permit you can carry loaded/unloaded. Concealed/Open, partial or not.

 

[bane]

UTOC,

I agree with you. However, apparently these poor LEO's, City Attorney, and Judge did not agree. Fortunately, the Utah State Appellate Court *DID*.

 

[UTOC-45-44]

UTOC,

I agree with you. However, apparently these poor LEO's, City Attorney, and Judge did not agree. Fortunately, the Utah State Appellate Court *DID*.

Yep. It's sad that we are paying a bunch of "Opinion" Enforcement Officers at time when they reall are suppossed to be LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS.

The general idea from what I understand in the LEO community is "Let's have the Judge figure it out" mentality very common. Working this way...ANYBODY can be a LEO

 

[bane]

UTOC,

I wholeheartedly agree with you.

Based on my own very limited experience, I think your assessment that a lot of LEO's operate on the "Let's let the judge figure it out" is correct.

Personally, after my step-father spent time for a bad decision on the part of the LEO, I think the law should stipulate that the LEO should have to answer for his mistake if it is found by a higher-court to have been a gross and negligent oversight.

But that's just my opinion; I'm sure some will flame me for it. But seriously, all LEO's should be fairly knowledgeable about the laws they write people up for... or else they should NOT be writing a ticket.

 

[althor]

UTOC,

I wholeheartedly agree with you.

Based on my own very limited experience, I think your assessment that a lot of LEO's operate on the "Let's let the judge figure it out" is correct.

Personally, after my step-father spent time for a bad decision on the part of the LEO, I think the law should stipulate that the LEO should have to answer for his mistake if it is found by a higher-court to have been a gross and negligent oversight.

But that's just my opinion; I'm sure some will flame me for it. But seriously, all LEO's should be fairly knowledgeable about the laws they right people up for... or else they should be writing a ticket.

Even if the LEO was way off in this case you would think that the prosecutor would figure it out long before 60 days. Were there additional charges against him related to his conduct with the police officers or something other than just the concealment? Something seems to be missing.

 

[TMG]

UTOC,

I wholeheartedly agree with you.

Based on my own very limited experience, I think your assessment that a lot of LEO's operate on the "Let's let the judge figure it out" is correct.

Personally, after my step-father spent time for a bad decision on the part of the LEO, I think the law should stipulate that the LEO should have to answer for his mistake if it is found by a higher-court to have been a gross and negligent oversight.

But that's just my opinion; I'm sure some will flame me for it. But seriously, all LEO's should be fairly knowledgeable about the laws they right people up for... or else they should be writing a ticket.

Funny, Bane, how you turn a question about concealed weapons into a L.E. bashing thread... I imagine there is MUCH more to your 'story' if your step-father did 60 days in jail, and the Attorney's and the Judge agreed with the officers... Not many people do 60 days for a Class B misd.

One of his charges? CONCEALEMENT. Why? Because his shirt, it was ALLEGED, which was untucked, was PARTIALLY covering his firearm.

ONE of his charges? what were the others? And if they dismissed that charge, what did he do 60 days in jail for?

Ya see Bane, when you provide only half-truths about a story simply to bash LEO's, people like UTOC respond with their own stupid comments like this one.

Yep. It's sad that we are paying a bunch of "Opinion" Enforcement Officers at time when they reall are suppossed to be LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS.

The general idea from what I understand in the LEO community is "Let's have the Judge figure it out" mentality very common. Working this way...ANYBODY can be a LEO

Thus turning a good discussion about a legal question into a L.E bashing thread; all because of some B.S. story where you want to blame LEO's for your step-fathers screw up...

 

[Car Knocker]

Getting real close to a personal attack here. If you have questions about bane's story, they can be asked in a less confrontational manner to develop the same information. Thank you.

 

[marksman]

I have a question. There seem to be people on this thread that are really knowledgeable about law enforcement. If a LEO Thinks your breaking a law but isn't sure is there someone they can call (captain whatever) to get clarification and if that guy doesn't know is there a department legal advisor or someone they can contact. It seems like if we don't give resources to LEO's then the only decision they have is to arrest you and let the DA (someone who is trained in the law) determine if you have really done something wrong. And that seems like it's a total violation of your rights and someone should be held accountable for holding your when you have broken no law.

 

[TMG]

Getting real close to a personal attack here. If you have questions about bane's story, they can be asked in a less confrontational manner to develop the same information. Thank you.

If you're going to moderate this forum, then do so unbiased.

If someone is going to attack LEO's on here with inflamatory comments, half truths, and Generalizations, then they should expect harsh words in return from offended LEO's.

 

[Car Knocker]

TMG,

I suggest that before you accuse me of being biased, you do due diligence and research the fate of threads I have intervened in for cop bashing.

You seem to have overlooked this statement bane made:

(No disrespect to any other LEO's... they are all individuals, these 2 apparently were not on the up-and-up, but they are only 2)

Law enforcement is not a sacrosanct profession whose members are above justified criticism. LEOs, like members of any other profession, make errors of judgement and/or commit crimes. Bane made an observation about two anonymous LEOs his father encountered. You chose not to elicit further information from bane in a civil manner but opted for ad hominem attacks.

Please note Rule #5 that you agreed to comply with when you joined this site:

No posts that use abusive or vulgar language, particularly personal attacks on members of this forum, are allowed. We can and certainly do disagree on issues, but it is expected that we can do so in a civil manner.

If you disagree with bane's assessment of the two unknown officers, I suggest that you ask, civilly, for further information about the incident in question and then develop your position.