parabellum wrote: ↑Tue Feb 02, 2021 8:48 am How so? It clearly states that for a person to be charged the weapon must be intentionally removed from the holster. As far as the jacket scenario, as long as it’s in the holster, you’re good, through the exception clause.This one seems clear to me.
Yes, but it should never be in an exception clause. If it simply stated, that if the gun is carried openly, it must be in a holster, there would be no need to add a criminal definition. Brandishing a firearm, in a manner to frighten, is already part of the penal code.
Even the open carry law, should be amended to say "in a holster" instead of in a belt or shoulder holster. As it is written, with no definitions, of either a belt, or shoulder holster, someone with a drop leg holster, or chest rig, could conceivably be charged with a crime.
I agree with you, that for you and I, the language, is somewhat easy to follow. Unfortunately, there are anti-gun DAs, and even some LEO, who can simply apply the first portion of the law, and only concede the exception after arrest/trial. JMHO