• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

What constitutes "concealed" in VA?

SouthernBoy

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
5,837
Location
Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
We need a "Virginia Bubba Law" thread. I think I'll start one. :)

TFred

Nah, nah... Sounds more like something you'd hear from someone from up in the northeast. Like New Jersey, New York, Connecticut*, etc.


* About five or six years ago, I had quite a conversation with three or four people from Connecticut at a vacation resort further south about the carrying of firearms, what was legal and what was not, and how the police would treat you if they saw your sidearm (you know, throw you on the ground, knee in back, etc.). There were a few Canadians in the mix who sided with the folks from Connecticut.
 
Last edited:

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,449
Location
Valhalla
....


* About five or six years ago, I had quite a conversation with three or four people from Connecticut at a vacation resort further south about the carrying of firearms, what was legal and what was not, and how the police would treat you if they saw your sidearm (you know, throw you on the ground, knee in back, etc.). There were a few Canadians in the mix who sided with the folks from Connecticut.

Well, what can you expect from folks who live in foreign [strike]planets[/strike] countries, or from Canadians for that matter?

stay safe.
 

SouthernBoy

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
5,837
Location
Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
Well, what can you expect from folks who live in foreign [strike]planets[/strike] countries, or from Canadians for that matter?

stay safe.

It was quite a conversation. They were pretty adamant in their stance and thought that anyone who carried a sidearm and was not an LEO was next to nuts. The "throw you on the ground and cuff you" mentally was rampant and stated. I came away thinking that they believed Southerners to be just slightly one step up from knuckle-dragging mouth breathers and yet, here they were in the deep South. It is my sincere and prayed for hope that people like this do not migrate to the South and bring along their strange ideas with them. I would hate to see what has taken place in Florida to also take place in other of the Southern states to that degree.
 

The Truth

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2014
Messages
1,972
Location
Henrico
I understand all of the above statements, but am I required to tuck in my shirt when OC'ing? Seems like with the shirt untucked and with no CHP, the gun could "incidentally" become partly concealed. I hate tucking my shirt in but if it will save me legal troubles I can deal with it.
 

Blk97F150

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2010
Messages
1,180
Location
Virginia
I understand all of the above statements, but am I required to tuck in my shirt when OC'ing? Seems like with the shirt untucked and with no CHP, the gun could "incidentally" become partly concealed. I hate tucking my shirt in but if it will save me legal troubles I can deal with it.

Use the 'Virginia Tuck'... only tuck your shirt in around/behind the firearm. :cool:
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,331
Location
Valhalla
I understand all of the above statements, but am I required to tuck in my shirt when OC'ing? Seems like with the shirt untucked and with no CHP, the gun could "incidentally" become partly concealed. I hate tucking my shirt in but if it will save me legal troubles I can deal with it.
"Partially concealed" is not in and of itself a problem/illegal. Insofar as the gun can be observed and recognized for what it is, you are good to go.

§ 18.2-308 (A) contains the phrase "hidden from common observation" referring to concealed carry.
https://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-308

Conversely, not concealed (OC), would be not hidden from common observation :)
 

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,337
Location
Nevada
If I understand what you are saying, you normally have it tucked behind the gun, but not tucked into your pants.

Yes, you have a responsibility to ensure that it does not flip over the gun and conceal it.

You have no requirement to tuck it into your pants, but that may be the best way to ensure it.

My PERSONAL feelings are that a "Virginia tuck" (behind the gun only) is sloppy and makes it appear you are purposely drawing attention to it, as most won't know you are only doing it because of the law against concealing it. One of the reasons I open carry frequently is because I like having my shirts neatly tucked into my pants. I'm square.
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,449
Location
Valhalla
IIRC the "Virginia tuck" started in the deep dark days just after shall-issue CHPs came about and folks discoverred that while they could not go into places that served alcohol for on-premise consumption if they were CCing, there was no such prohibition regarding OC.

Thus, the front edge of sports coats/suit jackets were tucked behind the grip and The Missus could be taken out to dinner while Hubby remained armed as opposed to leaving it in the car.

It has now morphed into more often the side of the shirt being tucked behind the grip/into the belt behind the holster.

Dressing like a gentleman with your shirt tails neatly tucked into your pants - with no covering garment - eliminates the need to perform a "Virginia tuck" . So does removing your sports coat/suit jacket.*

stay safe.

* - There is continuing discussion over whether you would need to carry your sports coat/suit jacket over the arm opposite the side your holster is on. I don't understand the issue at all, as carrying anything on your strong-side arm/in your strong-side hand just seems to not make sense. Being a righty, I got into the habit of keeping that hand unincumbered when in the military - needed it to salute with.:D
 

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
My PERSONAL feelings are that a "Virginia tuck" (behind the gun only) is sloppy and makes it appear you are purposely drawing attention to it, as most won't know you are only doing it because of the law against concealing it. One of the reasons I open carry frequently is because I like having my shirts neatly tucked into my pants. I'm square.

It may be sloppy Mac but it's how I've always carried. I don't tuck my shirt tail in because I move around enough for it to come out. Then it really gets sloppy looking plus there is a very real chance of it covering the gun, something that's never happened with the tuck.
 

user

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
2,516
Location
Northern Piedmont
There's no hard and fast rule about that. If a reasonably perceptive person can see it and tell what it is, then it's not concealed; e.g., openly carried but in a holster is not "concealed". Also, it's not the actual perception of the other person that counts, it's what they could have seen if they'd bothered to look. So the gun lying openly on the passenger seat of the car is not "concealed", even though the cop couldn't see it as he was walking up. I had a case once in which my client was arrested for carrying a concealed handgun without a permit where he'd let his CHP expire and was driving while wearing a coat that could have covered his holster, but he said his coat was drawn up and tucked behind the holster while he was driving. When the cop got him out of the car for busted taillight or something, he took the coat off and threw it into the car. He wasn't guilty because the cop never went around to the passenger side of the car to see whether the gun was actually concealed or not. The principle is, if it was important to you, you should have looked. If you're a person of ordinary perception and you did look but couldn't see that it was a gun, then it was concealed. That make sense?
 
Top