General Categories > Carry Issues

When is handgun considered concealed?

<< < (3/8) > >>

bullit:
What is your basis/support for this statement?  I reread the OP and replies ... you make it sound a rampant or even common issue (likes cops going around in packs killing black males....)


--- Quote from: davep on December 04, 2014, 11:21:56 PM ---why does LE continue to operate under the plain sight requirement that has never had any statutory basis?
--- End quote ---

davep:

What is your basis/support for this statement?

Support/basis for LE still operating under the plain sight requirement is, that is reason the LEO gave for making the charge.
Support/basis for plain sight requirement having a statutory basis?...That is the question I have been asking, what is the statute that backs up "plain sight"?
Makes it sound rampant?....The County Attorney's response when asked about waiving the 28-1202 charge started like this; "What we have been doing with these". That statement would lead one to believe this was not the first time this offense had crossed this CA's desk.
Rampant problem?...I don't know, but it did happening once.
Lastly, all involved in the initial contact were white males, so I don't think playing the race card will work with this one. :-)
Dave

bullit:
I what would help my slow catching up DavP is your OP ... what exactly are you referring to ?  The McCullough shooting? 

davep:
I am referencing an incident in September this year when an individual violated a traffic ordinance (failed to stop at stop sign), and a contact was made with LEO. In the course of the stop the 2 LEOs saw the driver's holstered handgun that was mounted in front of the console of his vehicle. The senior LEO then went forward with an charge and arrest for violating NRS 28-1202, carrying a concealed weapon, and seized then firearm, and impounded the vehicle. The driver did question the LEO as to how can it be concealed if you could see it? LEO's response was it has to be in plain sight. The LEO's report states he could see the handle of a gun.
The reason for my post is to attempt to establish if the "plain sight" requirement has any statutory basis, as statutory basis has been established for "any part capable of being seen it is not a concealed handgun". I have given the LEO the benefit of the doubt that he was carrying out his duties as he had been trained (must be in plain sight). If there is no statutory basis for the plain sight requirement, and there is statutory basis for the capable of being seen requirement, then the training of the LEO is what I am attempting to debate.
Dave

bullit:
Thnaks....  Personally my trip to recover my firearm would include a request to meet with thw Chief or Sheriff and respectfully "read them the riot act" .

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page