Chest Holster for Revolver

You not getting the concept that when something is illegal by default it can only become legal with a specific exemption.

Rifles and shotguns are not firearms so they're not illegal off the bat like pistol are. You can open carry rifles and shotguns since you don't need an exemption for them.

Pistols are illegal of the bat and your carry license gives you the exemption to have and carry concealed.

DeSantis used to make a chest rig called the Black Mamba. All leather , reasonably priced and well made. Not sure if they do anymore.

Willjr75 said:

You not getting the concept that when something is illegal by default it can only become legal with a specific exemption.

Rifles and shotguns are not firearms so they're not illegal off the bat like pistol are. You can open carry rifles and shotguns since you don't need an exemption for them.

Pistols are illegal of the bat and your carry license gives you the exemption to have and carry concealed.

Click to expand...

Penal code 265 only talks of "illegal possession" with regards to pistols (meaning without a proper permit). It does not distinguish between "illegally" open carrying and "illegally" concealed carry.

Code 400 gives you an exemption to Code 265 with the different license types, most of which use the "have and carry concealed" language.

In the strictest legal sense, open carrying a pistol might find you in violation of the some aspect of Code 400 (which might lead to a misdemeanor or revocation of your permit), but I don't see how a prosecutor could use Code 265 against you since you wouldn't be guilty of any "illegal" possession if you have a permit.

In the practical sense, open carry happens all the time in this state, albeit in certain environments and scenarios (hunting, target shooting, ect.). No one can argue, with any credibility, that open carry of a pistol is illegal at all times in all situations, because it has been happening frequently enough that is commonly accepted in certain situations. There is no "exemption" specifically listed to open carry your pistol on your hip at a range, but everyone does it. That doesn't mean we can all go open carry our pistols down mainstreet in a city, but that's not the same as open carrying to a gravel dug out on some state land or open carrying while hunting in a WMA.

The legal language isn't very helpful on this matter, but if you talk to enough DEC, police and 2a lawyers, you'll get a feel for what is and isn't tolerated in this state.

Possession means carrying it or having in the person's vicinity. A person who carries, also possesses it.

From article 10.

8. "Possess" means to have physical possession or otherwise to exercise dominion or control over tangible property.

When you are carrying, you are having both physical possession and exercising dominion and control over the gun.

So Penal law 265 makes it a crime to possess it unless exempted. When you are carrying it, you are possessing it. Penal law 400 let's you have possession of it since not everyone can have it and carry it on your person concealed since not everyone can carry it. Your exemptions are for 2 things. Not 3 things. If possession was the only thing you were exempted for than you wouldn't need an exemption for carrying concealed. Just the exemption for possession would suffice. It would cover both message of carry. That isn't the case however which is why they have to exempt you for concealed carry since only a possession exemption doesn't suffice.

But like I said earlier, no one really gets bothered by the police. It's accepted in certain areas. If you start pushing the fact that they don't bother you and decide to start open carrying in Walmart, they can get you with a misdemeanor as spelled out in Penal Law 400 for violating any section of it.

Willjr75 said:

Possession means carrying it or having in the person's vicinity. A person who carries, also possesses it.

From article 10.

8. "Possess" means to have physical possession or otherwise to exercise dominion or control over tangible property.

When you are carrying, you are having both physical possession and exercising dominion and control over the gun.

So Penal law 265 makes it a crime to possess it unless exempted. When you are carrying it, you are possessing it. Penal law 400 let's you have possession of it since not everyone can have it and carry it on your person concealed since not everyone can carry it. Your exemptions are for 2 things. Not 3 things. If possession was the only thing you were exempted for than you wouldn't need an exemption for carrying concealed. Just the exemption for possession would suffice. It would cover both message of carry. That isn't the case however which is why they have to exempt you for concealed carry since only a possession exemption doesn't suffice.

Click to expand...

I don't follow your logic, but you did bring up this clause for Penal Code 400:

The provisions of article two hundred sixty-five of this chapter relating to illegal possession of a firearm, shall not apply to an offense which also constitutes a violation of this section by a person holding an otherwise valid license under the provisions of this section and such offense shall only be punishable as a class A misdemeanor pursuant to this section.

Click to expand...

The above clause states very clearly that pistol permit holders would be held accountable by Code 400, not 265, if they were to demonstrate a violation of the permit's language/stipulations.

If you have a pistol permit, you can't be found guilty of "illegal possession" as per code 265. You have an exemption from "illegal possession"...doesn't matter if its open or concealed carrying. But all of this is a moot discussion point in the grand scheme of things.

Willjr75 said:

But like I said earlier, no one really gets bothered by the police. It's accepted in certain areas. If you start pushing the fact that they don't bother you and decide to start open carrying in Walmart, they can get you with a misdemeanor as spelled out in Penal Law 400 for violating any section of it.

Click to expand...

Yes, I've been saying this from the get-go. There is a practical interpretation to how the pistol permit law works. It's not right to say that open carry is forbidden in all cases, but it's also not right to say that you can open carry wherever you please...there is quite a bit of gray area thanks to the vague language of the related laws.

Upstate43 said:

I don't follow your logic, but you did bring up this clause for Penal Code 400:



The above clause states very clearly that pistol permit holders would be held accountable by Code 400, not 265, if they were to demonstrate a violation of the permit's language/stipulations.

If you have a pistol permit, you can't be found guilty of "illegal possession" as per code 265. You have an exemption from "illegal possession"...doesn't matter if its open or concealed carrying. But all of this is a moot discussion point in the grand scheme of things.




Yes, I've been saying this from the get-go. There is a practical interpretation to how the pistol permit law works. It's not right to say that open carry is forbidden in all cases, but it's also not right to say that you can open carry wherever you please...there is quite a bit of gray area thanks to the vague language of the related laws.

Click to expand...

That's correct. You are immune for Penal law 265 from being charged. I've said dozens of times already that you'll be charged under Penal Law 400 for violating its provisions as a misdemeanor if they ever wanted to charge you for open carry.

Well I got my holster today.

Solid and well built. Worth the money. Seems like it is going to take a long time to break in.

Gonzobird said:

Well I got my holster today.

Solid and well built. Worth the money. Seems like it is going to take a long time to break in.

Click to expand...

I wore mine around the house with and without the revolver for a couple of weeks before hunting season just to get used to it.

S&W Fan said:

I wore mine around the house with and without the revolver for a couple of weeks before hunting season just to get used to it.

Click to expand...

Plus the UPS guy I'm sure has a whole new respect for you.

BDinPutnam said:

Plus the UPS guy I'm sure has a whole new respect for you.

Click to expand...

Now that I think on it, He was more polite than normal.

1911guy said:

As the attorney who explained it to me and in the book of pistol laws written by an attorney and a retired state trooper explained it: open carry is prohibited in the established law that creates the handgun license because the handgun license is worded as a "concealed carry license" or a license to "carry a concealed" handgun.

So technically only concealed carry is legal. To make the statement that open carry it not illegal is misleading, but the affect of the law is typically the same. But someone could get in serious trouble if he/she accepts your word and openly carries downtown for example.

Click to expand...

So then what provision of the law allows me to keep a handgun in my safe at home ?

It's not being carried concealed (which is all you claim it is good for), and it is very illegal for someone without a pistol permit to have a handgun in their safe.

spat said:

So then what provision of the law allows me to keep a handgun in my safe at home ?

It's not being carried concealed (which is all you claim it is good for), and it is very illegal for someone without a pistol permit to have a handgun in their safe.

Click to expand...

None. It's a poorly drafted law written by people who don't know guns and didn't have the brains to foreshadow the consequences of what they passed. That's what you refuse to understand.

It's just as idiotic as the one that says that a loaded weapon is one that has ammo in the same vicinity. You trying to make sense of that one is the same as you trying to make sense of the open carry nonsense above or what makes a rifle have the ability to accept a detachable magazine.

Willjr75 said:

None. It's a poorly drafted law written by people who don't know guns and didn't have the brains to foreshadow the consequences of what they passed. That's what you refuse to understand.

It's just as idiotic as the one that says that a loaded weapon is one that has ammo in the same vicinity. You trying to make sense of that one is the same as you trying to make sense of the open carry nonsense above or what makes a rifle have the ability to accept a detachable magazine.

Click to expand...

I realize the people who wrote the law were probably outsmarted by the paper it was written on, but that doesn't change the fact that you claim it outlaws open carry but does not outlaw keeping in a safe at home with no explanation of what the difference is.

spat said:

I realize the people who wrote the law were probably outsmarted by the paper it was written on, but that doesn't change the fact that you claim it outlaws open carry but does not outlaw keeping in a safe at home with no explanation of what the difference is.

Click to expand...

What needs to be explained? It's a poorly written law just like a multitude of others.

Did they explain what a fixed magazine is or what a pistol grip is? Or are we to just assume that a pistol grip is a hollowed-out grip that can accept a magazine?

Willjr75 said:

What needs to be explained? It's a poorly written law just like a multitude of others.

Did they explain what a fixed magazine is or what a pistol grip is? Or are we to just assume that a pistol grip is a hollowed-out grip that can accept a magazine?

Click to expand...

What needs to be explained is why you think that mess of a law allows keeping it in a safe, but not an OWB holster.

spat said:

So then what provision of the law allows me to keep a handgun in my safe at home ?

It's not being carried concealed (which is all you claim it is good for), and it is very illegal for someone without a pistol permit to have a handgun in their safe.

Click to expand...

I didn't write the law. This whole argument is merely semantics. As poorly written as the law is, it is the law. Ask a lawyer.

spat said:

What needs to be explained is why you think that mess of a law allows keeping it in a safe, but not an OWB holster.

Click to expand...

Ask them. I'm just going by what the law actually says. While you are at it, ask them why they thought a stock that collapses 2 inches is a military feature or one that has a hole in it.

You see my point?

The only people stupider than politicians are the people that elect them.

Willjr75 said:

Ask them. I'm just going by what the law actually says. While you are at it, ask them why they thought a stock that collapses 2 inches is a military feature or one that has a hole in it.

You see my point?

Click to expand...

I'm asking why *you* think that's what it says.

I know what I think it says.

And I'm pretty sure if you asked the people who wrote it they would tell you that is the part that bans the shoulder thing that goes up.

spat said:

I'm asking why *you* think that's what it says.

I know what I think it says.

And I'm pretty sure if you asked the people who wrote it they would tell you that is the part that bans the shoulder thing that goes up.

Click to expand...

I've already explained it numerous times in this thread and numerous times and other threads that we talked in. You can use the search function to read those threads or you can skim up on this one. You can also ask NRA lawyers that take time out to read laws and write pages on where it's legal on per state.

Willjr75 said:

I've already explained it numerous times in this thread and numerous times and other threads that we talked in. You can use the search function to read those threads or you can skim up on this one. You can also ask NRA lawyers that take time out to read laws and write pages on where it's legal on per state.

Click to expand...

You have never once explained the difference between OC and storage in a safe.

It has been brought up numerous times, but each time you claim that the fact that the law is poorly written is why it means what you think it means.

I do not understand that argument.

Poorly written explains why it doesn't mean what the authors intended it to mean, but it does not explain why it means one thing instead of another.

spat said:

You have never once explained the difference between OC and storage in a safe.

It has been brought up numerous times, but each time you claim that the fact that the law is poorly written is why it means what you think it means.

I do not understand that argument.

Poorly written explains why it doesn't mean what the authors intended it to mean, but it does not explain why it means one thing instead of another.

Click to expand...

I don't understand what you're asking. Perhaps you can spell it out for me. Are you saying that if it's in a safe you are carrying it?

Willjr75 said:

I don't understand what you're asking. Perhaps you can spell it out for me. Are you saying that if it's in a safe you are carrying it?

Click to expand...

No, I'm saying if it is in a safe, you are *not* carrying it concealed, but it is still legal.

That proves that the law allows possession outside of the "carrying concealed" exception that you argue is the only legal way to possess it.

spat said:

No, I'm saying if it is in a safe, you are *not* carrying it concealed, but it is still legal.

That proves that the law allows possession outside of the "carrying concealed" exception that you argue is the only legal way to possess it.

Click to expand...

The law just says "to have and carry concealed." That's it. Not have and carry openly and concealed.

Is the "have" part the part that is the issue for you? I'm allowed to have a car but I can't drive it unless I have a license to drive it concealed. Just kidding but you get the picture if having a car was illegal and you needed a license to possess it.

Willjr75 said:

The law just says "to have and carry concealed." That's it. Not have and carry openly and concealed.

Is the "have" part the part that is the issue for you? I'm allowed to have a car but I can't drive it unless I have a license to drive it concealed. Just kidding but you get the picture if having a car was illegal and you needed a license to possess it.

Click to expand...

Right, so what part of that allows me to keep it in my safe ?

spat said:

Right, so what part of that allows me to keep it in my safe ?

Click to expand...

The have part. You have permission to have it.

Willjr75 said:

The have part. You have permission to have it.

Click to expand...

So then what am I going to be charged with if I OC ?

The only relavent thing prohibited in PL265 is possession. If my permit covers possession in my safe, why doesn't it cover possession on my hip ?

spat said:

So then what am I going to be charged with if I OC ?

The only relavent thing prohibited in PL265 is possession. If my permit covers possession in my safe, why doesn't it cover possession on my hip ?

Click to expand...

Because possession and carry are two different things. You can possess and not carry. Because it's in a safe or underneath a counter, it isn't being carried. They make the distinction by issuing possession licenses. You can't carry on a premises possession licenses either openly or concealed out and about in Walmart can you? Just the fact that we need a concealed carry license to carry concealed establishes that fact. If we didn't, all we would need is possession licenses.

Here's a perfect example. Say you own a business in NYC in a mall. (I only mention New York City because they are the only ones that issue premises licenses.) You get a possession license for your bank in the mall. That doesn't mean that you can carry openly or concealed in your bank and in the common areas of the mall or outside. You would have to be issued a carry license.

Now if you had it in a locked box and was going to the range or gunsmith with it from the bank, they would consider it just possession and you are covered.

I get that the law makes no distinction between it being loaded and on your hip or unloaded and in a box but it is what it is and most people get it's intention.

What you are doing is basically saying, " What if I build a pistol with a shroud that cannot burn my hand because I'll be wearing a glove or I have a prosthetic." It no longer is a shroud because my hand cannot be burnt. Saying that it being in a locked box is the same as in a holster and on the hip is saying the same thing and just as ridiculous and you are arguing semantics with the wrong person.

It should be the legislature that the argument should be pointed at for writing such a poorly written law without definitions.

Willjr75 said:

Because possession and carry are two different things. You can possess and not carry. Because it's in a safe or underneath a counter, it isn't being carried. They make the distinction by issuing possession licenses. You can't carry on a premises possession licenses either openly or concealed out and about in Walmart can you? Just the fact that we need a concealed carry license to carry concealed establishes that fact. If we didn't, all we would need is possession licenses.

Here's a perfect example. Say you own a business in NYC in a mall. (I only mention New York City because they are the only ones that issue premises licenses.) You get a possession license for your bank in the mall. That doesn't mean that you can carry openly or concealed in your bank and in the common areas of the mall or outside. You would have to be issued a carry license.

Now if you had it in a locked box and was going to the range or gunsmith with it from the bank, they would consider it just possession and you are covered.

I get that the law makes no distinction between it being loaded and on your hip or unloaded and in a box but it is what it is and most people get it's intention.

What you are doing is basically saying, " What if I build a pistol with a shroud that cannot burn my hand because I'll be wearing a glove or I have a prosthetic." It no longer is a shroud because my hand cannot be burnt. Saying that it being in a locked box is the same as in a holster and on the hip is saying the same thing and just as ridiculous and you are arguing semantics with the wrong person.

It should be the legislature that the argument should be pointed at for writing such a poorly written law without definitions.

Click to expand...

The premise permit only covers possession at the specific location. That is why it doesn't allow concealed carry. If all you have is a premise permit you can CC or OC all you want as long as you do it at that premise.

I am licensed to possess a firearm in most of the state (except NYC and a few specific areas like schools and so forth). If I were to OC, what would they charge me with ? Can't be possession, my license covers possession. There isn't another charge to be levied.

spat said:

The premise permit only covers possession at the specific location. That is why it doesn't allow concealed carry. If all you have is a premise permit you can CC or OC all you want as long as you do it at that premise.

I am licensed to possess a firearm in most of the state (except NYC and a few specific areas like schools and so forth). If I were to OC, what would they charge me with ? Can't be possession, my license covers possession. There isn't another charge to be levied.

Click to expand...

If you read above, I posted that in Penal Law 265, it says that a person who is licensed via a penal law 400, is exempt from prosecution from penal law 265.

And in penal law 400, it states that the provisions of article two hundred sixty-five of this chapter relating to illegal possession of a firearm, shall not apply to an offense which also constitutes a violation of this section by a person holding an otherwise valid license under the provisions of this section and such offense shall only be punishable as a class A misdemeanor pursuant to this section.

It also states at the bottom of penal law 400 again that notwithstanding any other provision of law, a violation of paragraph (a) of subdivision one of this section shall be a class A misdemeanor.

If you read the whole penal law, it makes multiple distinctions between carry and possession. Here is the just one from penal law 400. There are others that imply the distinction.

8. License: exhibition and display. Every licensee while carrying a pistol or revolver shall have on his or her person a license to carry the same. Every person licensed to possess a pistol or revolver on particular premises shall have the license for the same on such premises.

Notice the language. Do you have a license to carry openly? Does a premise permit holder have a license to carry?

Every NRA lawyer agrees that open carry is not legal. But if you disagree, that's totally up to you.