SC Statute: "Concealed" - What does this mean?

[kudzu]

"(6) “Concealable weapon” means a firearm having a length of less than twelve inches measured along its greatest dimension that must be carried in a manner that is hidden from public view in normal wear of clothing except when needed for self defense, defense of others, and the protection of real or personal property."

Is that the only reference to "concealed" in the statute? What does the underlined portion mean?

 

[jhodge83]

the way i was told was that it has it has to be covered and not be able to be made out from beneath the clothing itself.

 

[rrman12280]

the way i was told was that it has it has to be covered and not be able to be made out from beneath the clothing itself.

Agreed...........

 

[Everclear]

No part to be visible and should not be able to see imprint of weapon.

 

[kelcarry]

I apologize profusely but what is the problem in understanding what is meant. Hidden from public view under normal clothes means IT IS HIDDEN FROM PUBLIC VIEW UNDER NORMAL CLOTHES. What word in there is not understandable. Personally, I think you are reading much too much into this phrase. Anyone of us who CC will make the conscious effort to hide the firearm under our normal clothes where it is hidden from view. If someone, looking at you like you are nude, notices the possibility that you are CC---that is still within the definition. If you have a tight see thru tee shirt on or a mesh tee shirt and the firearm is visible---that is illegal. If you have the firearm in your pocket and the butt of the gun sticks out, that is illegal.

 

[kudzu]

I apologize profusely but what is the problem in understanding what is meant. Hidden from public view under normal clothes means IT IS HIDDEN FROM PUBLIC VIEW UNDER NORMAL CLOTHES. What word in there is not understandable. Personally, I think you are reading much too much into this phrase. Anyone of us who CC will make the conscious effort to hide the firearm under our normal clothes where it is hidden from view. If someone, looking at you like you are nude, notices the possibility that you are CC---that is still within the definition. If you have a tight see thru tee shirt on or a mesh tee shirt and the firearm is visible---that is illegal. If you have the firearm in your pocket and the butt of the gun sticks out, that is illegal.

You need not apologize for your question.

My questions were posed because I have heard presumably knowledgeable people, CWP instructors for example, differ in their understanding of the law. And, my first question was whether or not there is anything else on point in the law?

More specifically, I guess the real question in the back of my mind is when carrying, in a location where it is otherwise legal to carry, what are the potential consequences of John Public or Officer Friendly detecting that you are armed?

 

[kelcarry]

More specifically, I guess the real question in the back of my mind is when carrying, in a location where it is otherwise legal to carry, what are the potential consequences of John Public or Officer Friendly detecting that you are armed?

There are no potential consequences unless the LEO is a moron and/or a bully. Face it, he can arrest or ticket you for j-walking or littering if he wants just because he is having a bad day. You make a conscious effort to conceal and that is all that is required. Its like the pornography phrase echoed by a supreme court justice---you know it when you see it. Same goes for concealment/non-concealment. Non-concealment is obvious to anyone with half a brain--you know it BECAUSE YOU CAN SEE IT. If I look hard and long enough at enough people I am sure I can tell who is CC. Some people are better at it, have smaller leaner firearms and smaller leaner holsters--others not so much--BUT THEY ARE FOLLOWING THE LAW'S INTENT. You are really over worrying and discussing this issue--just have a life and be safe and happy and healthy. PS: My apologies once again for my straightforward nature on this--it just seemed that dealing with this aspect of the gun law was just a matter of plain common sense without a series of felonious ambushes and hidden agendas in the law along the way.

 

[FN1910]

You are not the first to ask this question nor will you be the last I imagine. This is the only reference to the definition that is in the law unless you consider an AG opinion law. To me the definition was left vague on purpose but by doing so overestimated the intelligence of the public. If you want to carry a 1911 in a speedo go ahead but don't get upset when a jury disagrees. However if a cop makes you because of a hunch then you have a great case. Primarily it means try to use some common sense about carrying. There is no way you can 100% conceal from everyone all the time but good faith and reasonableness will go a long way in your favor. Other than that I can't give you any advice other than try to locate the AG opinion on his thoughts on it.

 

[kudzu]

You are not the first to ask this question nor will you be the last I imagine. This is the only reference to the definition that is in the law unless you consider an AG opinion law. To me the definition was left vague on purpose but by doing so overestimated the intelligence of the public. If you want to carry a 1911 in a speedo go ahead but don't get upset when a jury disagrees. However if a cop makes you because of a hunch then you have a great case. Primarily it means try to use some common sense about carrying. There is no way you can 100% conceal from everyone all the time but good faith and reasonableness will go a long way in your favor. Other than that I can't give you any advice other than try to locate the AG opinion on his thoughts on it.

You have touched on most of the considerations that prompted my question. As far as I could determine, the referenced definition was the only mention in the code but, because things that might bear on the subject are not all in one place, I wondered if I might be overlooking something. I had also wondered about AG opinions and also whether there has been any adjudications on pertinent issues. I will look for the AG opinion you mention.

I agree with you that it appears the language in the definition cited was deliberately left vague. It seems to describe a quite liberal standard. It is, however, vague or ambivalent enough to contain a gotcha if a judge or jury were so inclined. I guess that is the case with a lot of laws!

One point that I do find interesting, that may support the theory of deliberate vagueness and liberality, is that "concealment," seemingly the very crux of the statute, is addressed only by one-half of one sentence in a list of definitions. Most of the meat of the statute is detailed in separaterate paragraphs or sections and often with penalties specified for their breaking.

 

[FN1910]

I have not been able to find the AG opinion on the definition of concealed as I do not have access to Westlaw and have not found it any other place. I would love to see that opinion if anyone has a link to it. I have had many people supposedly "quote" from it or give their opinion of what is in the opinion. This is one that should be made readily available to the public and included in the CWP course but alas it is not.

 

[Keykutter]

It is the opinion of many CWP instructors here in SC that covered(concealed) is the intent. Printing is not against the law.

That being said, I'm sure that a fishnet wifebeater or a skin tight T-shirt is a little overboard on the definition of printing. If you bend over and the gun butt sticks your shirt out a bit so the public may be able to see the buldge, you are not in violation of the law.

All of the LEO's I have spoken to around here say that their test on whether you were diplaying was a question to the complaintant, "what does the gun look like?'

If that can't be established, there is no problem.

I ALWAYS wear my shirt outside my pants and although you can see no buldge at my carry point, I'm sure that if I twist or turn just the right way, or bend over, you may see a slight bulge.

Printing is not illegal in SC, but I wouldn't want to test the extreme of a skin tight T-shirt.

KK

 

[Everclear]

Keykutter, Thank you for clearing that up for me. I thought printing was more of an issue than it is. I'll still be careful though.

 

[Red Hat]

Printing has never been a problem unless, as said above, it can be visually identified as a firearm. No where in the law does it say anything about printing. Cell phone cases and insulin pumps print more than most holsters. So trying to distinguish between them is almost impossible. Just keep it covered, don't worry and carry safe...