https://tacworldholsters.com/product/falco-slim-design-concealed-gun-belt-pouch-small-model-g117-s/
Please note, this article was written progressively during the project discussed, attempting to treat the matter with no preconceived notions on my part. It was my genuine hope that my start-from-scratch examination would overthrow a lot of conventional wisdom. Spoiler alert: It didn’t.
As a fudd, I very much tend toward minimalism in concealed carry. However, I am not blind to the argument for having on your person a little more than your Detective’s Special. Particularly in an urban setting, and even in the home, carrying larger firepower than a normal CCW piece holds particular appeal in some circumstances, such as late-night/early-morning or times of “abnormal” suspicions. But doing so, especially in that same urban environment, holds its own set of, shall we say, potential complications. Summertime effectively rules out jacket cover. Females have the option of a large purse, but males are more limited. However, there are in fact options. And that is what this article investigates.
A bit of background: For many many years, prior to my adult interest in matters kinetic, I would wear a pouch on my belt, carrying various things — everything from a checkbook to even a Bible at times. People would ask occasionally what I carried in it, but except when going through an airport, it never drew undo attention from authorities, public or private.
In that spirit, fanny packs are making a slight comeback in even unarmed society. Of course they have for years figured into some people’s carry SOP, given their capacity for, well, capacity! Larger-frame weapons, magazines, and other pertinent accessories can be transported on your person in public, while still effectively and legally “concealed.”
Then came THIS VIDEO from Babylon Bee. SPOILER ALERT: At one point, it focuses on how the visitor is open-carrying a large-frame automatic. As I reflected on the scene recently, it brought me to think more about even specifically “domestic” open carry – i.e., actually in one’s home and perhaps environs. Someone open-carrying in their homes might have an issue with friendly visitors, or when dealing with something outside. Hostile visitors can create actually a larger legal difficulty, as being “angry” while openly bearing arms may in fact be a full-on legal offense. Plus, there’s always the factor what a neighbor may see through a window. The scene made for a great video, but frankly is possibly more of a “don’t try this at home” thing.
All of this combined to get me to pursue a serious study into the matter of how to carry bigger-than-CCW firepower. Below are two articles discussing the matter. The first is from a vendor selling such items, and so holding obvious bias. The second is more objective, discussing some of the negatives of pouches and such. (It even references the desire of some to carry around an AR pistol. It discourages such a practice.)
I also did field testing on using a pouch of some sort for “domestic” and community carry (using a book to fill out the case). I wore one around home, both to get reaccustomed to wearing a pouch and to monitor any reactions from neighbors. I visited a number of businesses and watched reactions. And I inquired on the perceptions of a few trusted people as to just what impressions people may get.
The initial results brought me to a mixed opinion on such practice from a cost-risk analysis. Part of the issue was simply the practical factors attending to the hassle of a good-size pouch. I was brought to remember how the pouch I wore in the past would catch on things.
However, a bigger part of it was about the potential legal consequences. Though legally concealed, that doesn’t mean people won’t get an idea. One article had a commentor say that whenever he saw a grown man with a fanny pack, he just assumed the guy was carrying. Someone seeing such a sight, especially in the dark setting, might presume it to be a weapon and act accordingly. There are numerous reports of even police mistaking mundane objects for weapons. And in at least one case during my testing I have to honestly suspect somebody initially thought that object on my hip was a weapon.
And true confessions, I myself recently saw someone on the street I honestly thought for a moment had a long gun slung. Even after seeing it was a backpack with some sort of rod extending, I still wondered for a moment.
This then reminded me of a suggestion in a video that in a SHTF situation, one might carry a long gun in a guitar case so as not to attract attention to your level of armament. An issue I had with that was that if you were truly in such an emergency situation, would you be so worried about a musical instrument as to bring it with you? And what if somebody you’re attempting to hide the real contents from asks you to join them in a jam session???
(And yes, Mugsy, that applies to violin cases as well.)
That latter point was in part in jest. But applying it to pouch carry, it raised a potential wrinkle. You are wearing a pouch, but pull your wallet, phone, car keys, etc., out of other carrying places. So why the hell are you wearing that pouch?! Sure, it’s none of their business. Police might technically have no probable cause to search it(?). But, and especially without some other obvious use of the item – as a woman’s purse would have – as noted before, that doesn’t keep somebody from wondering. And that wondering might be enough to create a difficulty for the completely lawful arms bearer.
All of this comes around to confirm the obvious conclusion that I genuinely hoped I could get around when I started the study: Such pouches really are in fact little more than “shoot-me-first” badges. This term refers to items of apparel that essentially give away a person as a carrier. Though not as innately problematic as the iconic tactical vest, pouch approaches do stand out. Unless you have an express cover reason for wearing it, any initiated person will now perceive you have a weapon in there and are armed. LEGALLY it holds distinction from actual open carry (a jurisdiction allowing only open carry would likely consider pouch carry to be concealed), and it is less likely to cause public panic than actually open carrying. But consider whether you want to be subject of the test case that jurisprudentially kills that legal distinction, or the one experiencing the consequences of other people’s overreaction.
—-
Even in the land of the Second Amendment, there is a reality that must be faced. We do have to worry about what our neighbors think, what people in general might perceive (or misperceive), and how certain authorities may treat certain exercises in the context of bearing arms.
To be sure, a widespread movement of such carry would indeed make such carry far more expedient. That is, MANY people doing so regularly, so that the individual doing, so does that stand out. For this to happen would require a notable development in society that would warrant in enough people’s minds such a collective movement. (Possible example: Election chaos of the type feared after the 2020 Election Steal.) Individual(istic) initiative will not do it.
The desire for heavier firepower on your person as you go about your day is absolutely valid and absolutely legitimate. That doesn’t mean it’s feasible or wise. Part of the purpose of this TDF series has been to prepare people PSYCHOLOGICALLY, as well as tactically and politically, for ever-increasing restrictions on private arms and their keeping and bearing. This may indeed be a place where we will generally have to deny ourselves what we want, in the name of preserving what we indeed NEED. I’d cite specific TDF articles saying that, but that would include practically all of them.
Personal conclusion: Pouch carry of heavier firepower in the home may be a net risk-benefit positive, but still an overwhelming chance at a negative outcome (you never know who’s watching or why). And in public I myself am not ready yet to take the risks and give up – as a general practice – the inconspicuousness of minimalist CCW.
ARTICLES
