How would you handle this as a CCW holder?

[CadeH]

I have always been told that reaching for something on a top shelf (say in a store) and your concealed weapon is exposed a karen could complain and you could be charged with brandishing. This dud is a racist an idiot and a dumb f**k. Should have been charged.

Your CCW getting exposed accidentally doesnt meet the legal threshold for brandishing, you would get charged with PC 25850 Unlawful Carry of a Loaded Firearm. I've had it happen once and a firm "Don't worry ma'am, I'm on your side" satisfied the old lady. It isn't impersonating a cop if you just sound like one

 

[dvoncock]

As for handling this

Your CCW getting exposed accidentally doesnt meet the legal threshold for brandishing, you would get charged with PC 25850 Unlawful Carry of a Loaded Firearm. I've had it happen once and a firm "Don't worry ma'am, I'm on your side" satisfied the old lady. It isn't impersonating a cop if you just sound like one

It wouldn’t be a 25850 either, provided the carrier has a valid CCW license.

 

[dvoncock]

five.five-six-​

The thread title asked how a a CCW holder would handle it.
Your are correct. We took the wrong fork in the road.

1. I would be sure to have my teeth in
2. Better dressed, wife would not have let me out of the house looking like that.
3. Concealed is concealed
4. Torn between approaching and asking their business or calling the police, depends on how sketchy they are.
5. Made myself laugh with this one - if too sketchy just open up with a 50 cal. I know I am mentally challenged, (hell retarded less letters to type)


https://caguns.net/posts/167565/react?reaction_id=1

Getting back on track.

Never, in a hundred years of Sundays, would I approach a group of people that to “investigate” them. As a sane, responsible CCW holder, I know that my license doesn’t make a me a cop; and anyone who doesn’t understand that—including Mr. Boomer in the video—shouldn’t have a CCW, IMO.

From the flip side, if I were in these kids shoes … I’ll just say that I’d have been watching and waiting for Mr Boomer to show me an ear. That situation could’ve turned tragic real fast—another reason why Mr. Boomer doesn’t need his firearms rights anymore.

The real unsung hero is the second old guy who tried to talk Mr. Boomer off the ledge.

 

[CadeH]

As for handling this

It wouldn’t be a 25850 either, provided the carrier has a valid CCW license.

My best guess would be that you would not be carrying the firearm "as authorized pursuant to Section 26150", since you would not be carrying it in the specification required under 26150 (c)(1): "A license to carry concealed a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person". There aren't any other laws governing loaded open carry in California, so if there is a blanket exemption for people with their LTC then that means loaded open carry is legal no matter the duration.
Other than that it would just be your permit getting revoked, because you violated the "concealed" requirement.

 

[Gawernator]

I have always been told that reaching for something on a top shelf (say in a store) and your concealed weapon is exposed a karen could complain and you could be charged with brandishing. This dud is a racist an idiot and a dumb f**k. Should have been charged.

Whoever told you that isn’t very bright. As stated earlier brandishing has to be in a rude or threatening manner etc. things like printing or accidental exposure because your shirt ran up is NOT brandishing.

When have you ever heard of someone convicted because their shirt ran up and you could see their gun? What’s the source of these bs stories on the forums

 

[Gawernator]

Your CCW getting exposed accidentally doesnt meet the legal threshold for brandishing, you would get charged with PC 25850 Unlawful Carry of a Loaded Firearm. I've had it happen once and a firm "Don't worry ma'am, I'm on your side" satisfied the old lady. It isn't impersonating a cop if you just sound like one

You wouldn’t get charged with anything because accidental exposure is not against the law.

Accidental, momentary exposure of a lawfully carried CCW is not brandishing. Brandishing requires drawing or exhibiting the firearm in a rude, angry, or threatening manner. It also does not automatically turn a licensed carrier into an unlawful loaded carrier under PC 25850. Cover it and move on. Deliberately displaying it, openly carrying it for an extended period, or violating permit conditions would be a different issue.

 

[riceman]

Whoever told you that isn’t very bright. As stated earlier brandishing has to be in a rude or threatening manner etc. things like printing or accidental exposure because your shirt ran up is NOT brandishing.

When have you ever heard of someone convicted because their shirt ran up and you could see their gun? What’s the source of these bs stories on the forums

I am thinking it was a CCW instructor between 40 & 50 years ago.

 

[dvoncock]

My best guess would be that you would not be carrying the firearm "as authorized pursuant to Section 26150", since you would not be carrying it in the specification required under 26150 (c)(1): "A license to carry concealed a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person". There aren't any other laws governing loaded open carry in California, so if there is a blanket exemption for people with their LTC then that means loaded open carry is legal no matter the duration.
Other than that it would just be your permit getting revoked, because you violated the "concealed" requirement.

California has a little known open carry license. Until recently, they could only be obtained by residents of counties with a population of 200,000 or fewer people. That restriction was recently struck down.

Carrying loaded in public, concealed or not, falls under PC 25850. There is also PC 25400, which prohibits concealed carry. CCW holders are exempt from both, provided they are carrying a firearm they have a permit to carry, and it’s concealed.

However, what you’re describing is a strict liability scenario. Very few crimes in California—or anywhere else—are strict liability offenses. Most offenses require a willful act done on purpose. A momentary, unintentional exposure of a lawfully concealed pistol or revolver is not going to be a violation of PC 26350 (openly, unloaded) or PC 25850 (loaded, in public), because that’s not done willingly, on purpose.

If unintentional exposures happen repeatedly, or the hits the fan as a result of an unintentional exposure, a CCW holder’s IA definitely might revoke their license.

 

[NorCalBusa]

I have always been told that reaching for something on a top shelf (say in a store) and your concealed weapon is exposed a karen could complain and you could be charged with brandishing. This dud is a racist an idiot and a dumb f**k. Should have been charged.

That simply isn't correct. Seems some people like to propagate that story just see folkss get a rise over it.

 

[NorCalBusa]

Getting back on track.

Never, in a hundred years of Sundays, would I approach a group of people that to “investigate” them. As a sane, responsible CCW holder, I know that my license doesn’t make a me a cop; and anyone who doesn’t understand that—including Mr. Boomer in the video—shouldn’t have a CCW, IMO.

From the flip side, if I were in these kids shoes … I’ll just say that I’d have been watching and waiting for Mr Boomer to show me an ear. That situation could’ve turned tragic real fast—another reason why Mr. Boomer doesn’t need his firearms rights anymore.

The real unsung hero is the second old guy who tried to talk Mr. Boomer off the ledge.

I don't disagree with you, its a poor choice for CCW holders. Everyone does have Citizen's rights to arrest (should they choose to do so) with the criteria available online. Again, generally a poor choice- just call the cops and have your camera ready so you can show your kids.

 

[five.five-six]

Getting back on track.

Never, in a hundred years of Sundays, would I approach a group of people that to “investigate” them. As a sane, responsible CCW holder, I know that my license doesn’t make a me a cop; and anyone who doesn’t understand that—including Mr. Boomer in the video—shouldn’t have a CCW, IMO.

From the flip side, if I were in these kids shoes … I’ll just say that I’d have been watching and waiting for Mr Boomer to show me an ear. That situation could’ve turned tragic real fast—another reason why Mr. Boomer doesn’t need his firearms rights anymore.

The real unsung hero is the second old guy who tried to talk Mr. Boomer off the ledge.

Nope, not at all. You are correct.

As a cop:

it’s your job to investigate and protect public safety

Taxpayers pay for your defense

Taxpayers pay for any civil penalties you might incur

You get qualified immunity

You can use reasonable force

You get to wear a LEO uniform in court

You have a job with a fantastic pension

I thank you for your service to our community


On contrast:

A CCW holder save’s his families ass when goes sideways.

A CCW holder may only use necessary force.

 

[five.five-six]

Because we all know he acted like this because they weren’t white they’re just pointing out the obvious dude, and like this 99.9% of the time only happens to non white people

You are spouting peak bigotry, right there.

If you don’t want people to know you are a bigot, don’t post like a bigot.

Your choice.

 

[dvoncock]

I don't disagree with you, it’s a poor choice for CCW holders. Everyone does have Citizen's rights to arrest (should they choose to do so) with the criteria available online. Again, generally a poor choice- just call the cops and have your camera ready so you can show your kids.

I agree that it’s a terrible idea.

Here’s a good summary of citizens arrests in California from a reliable source.

How do I make a "citizen's arrest" in California? (PC § 837)

Penal Code § 837 PC permits you to make a citizen's arrest if you witness a crime in California or have reasonable cause to believe someone committed a felony.

www.shouselaw.com

The key thing is, if a citizen who makes an arrest is wrong about a crime having occurred, they can be sued and criminally prosecuted.

 

[Gawernator]

Nope, not at all. You are correct.

As a cop:

it’s your job to investigate and protect public safety

Taxpayers pay for your defense

Taxpayers pay for any civil penalties you might incur

You get qualified immunity

You can use reasonable force

You get to wear a LEO uniform in court

You have a job with a fantastic pension

I thank you for your service to our community


On contrast:

A CCW holder save’s his families ass when goes sideways.

A CCW holder may only use necessary force.

Both a cop and regular citizen may only use reasonable force. Not sure what you were trying to say with that, cops can use more than necessary force? What is the contrast? Why do you think cops can use more than necessary force per your post contrasting force - please explain.

 

[dvoncock]

Both a cop and regular citizen may only use reasonable force. Not sure what you were trying to say with that, cops can use more than necessary force? What is the contrast? Why do you think cops can use more than necessary force per your post contrasting force - please explain.

“Necessary force” and “reasonable force” are the same thing, legally speaking.

I suspect five.five.six was hinting at the benefit of doubt police enjoy when their uses of force are investigated or end up in court.

Something I’ve often wondered in my line of work is what effect eliminating qualified immunity and requiring some type of malpractice insurance would have on policing.